Re: [PATCH v5 13/18] mm: Remove __alloc_pages_node()
"Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-rt-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/13/26 17:54, Zi Yan wrote: > On 13 Jul 2026, at 11:26, Brendan Jackman wrote: > >> On Fri Jul 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM UTC, Zi Yan wrote: >>> On Fri Jul 3, 2026 at 8:31 AM EDT, Brendan Jackman wrote: >>>> There were only a few users, which have been removed. The only advantage >>>> of this API over alloc_pages_node() is avoiding a single conditional >>>> branch. The disadvantages are: >>>> >>>> 1. More API surface, more sources of confusion, more maintenance. >>>> >>>> 2. Worse impact of CPU hotplug bugs: most users of __alloc_pages_node() >>>> were using the result of cpu_to_node(); if the CPU gets hotplugged >>>> out this will return NUMA_NO_NODE. If one of these paths fails to >>>> protect against a concurrent hotplug then page_alloc.c will use >>>> NUMA_NO_NODE as an index into NODE_DATA() and cause some horrible >>>> memory corruption or other. With alloc_pages_node(), the code might >>>> just work fine. >>>> >>>> Ulterior motive: this frees up the __* variants of the allocator APIs to >>>> serve specifically for use as mm-internal API. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> >>>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> include/linux/gfp.h | 20 ++++---------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h >>>> index 01d6d2591f49e..3bf55a5f9143e 100644 >>>> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h >>>> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h >>>> @@ -256,21 +256,6 @@ static inline void warn_if_node_offline(int this_node, gfp_t gfp_mask) >>>> dump_stack(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -/* >>>> - * Allocate pages, preferring the node given as nid. The node must be valid and >>>> - * online. For more general interface, see alloc_pages_node(). >>>> - */ >>>> -static inline struct page * >>>> -__alloc_pages_node_noprof(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) >>>> -{ >>>> - VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES); >>>> - warn_if_node_offline(nid, gfp_mask); >>>> - >>>> - return __alloc_pages_noprof(gfp_mask, order, nid, NULL); >>>> -} >>>> - >>>> -#define __alloc_pages_node(...) alloc_hooks(__alloc_pages_node_noprof(__VA_ARGS__)) >>>> - >>>> static inline >>>> struct folio *__folio_alloc_node_noprof(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int nid) >>>> { >>>> @@ -293,7 +278,10 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node_noprof(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >>>> if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) >>>> nid = numa_mem_id(); >>>> >>>> - return __alloc_pages_node_noprof(nid, gfp_mask, order); >>>> + VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES); >>> >>> Could this become a VM_WARN_ON? >> >> Er, it will almost certainly crash later if this is violated. Personally > > You mean in warn_if_node_offline() when accessing the nodemask? > >> if I'm enabling DEBUG_VM I'd rather it crashes with a helpful stacktrace >> instead of chasing random poihnters, likely corrupting memory, and then >> crashing later in a completely undebuggable way instead. > > In this case, VM_WARN_ON + return NULL could work, right? See below. >> >> TBH I don't really understand the "don't BUG" culture we have in Linux. >> I usually just go along with it coz it doesn't seem important enough to >> argue about. But now I'm wondering: if we really don't like VM_BUG_ON() >> why not get rid of it completely? I wonder if there's some case-by-case >> difference that I'm not picking up on. > > My understanding is that issues like the above one should be caught > at development phase, so VM_WARN_ON() is sufficient. > > The source of “don’t BUG”: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1cfd9d7e43d5a1cf739d1420b10b1e65feb02f88 > You can read the commit message to know when BUG_ON() can be used. Quoted from there: I'd prefer to keep all these warnings 'simple' - i.e. no attempted recovery & control flow, unless we ever expect these to trigger. [5] So I wouldn't attempt recovery here. > > Best Regards, > Yan, Zi