From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node.
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:00:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1202313618.5453.29.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802051406500.14665@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:12 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> > mbind(2), on the other hand, just masks off any nodes in the
> > nodemask that are not included in the caller's mems_allowed.
>
> Ok so we temporarily adopt these semantics for set_mempolicy.
>
> > 1) modify contextualize_policy to just remove the non-allowed
> > nodes, as is currently done in-line for mbind(). This
> > guarantees that the resulting mask includes only nodes with
> > memory.
>
> Right make ssense. we already contextualize for cpusets.
Only for mbind(). set_mempolicy(), via contextualize_policy() was just
returning EINVAL for invalid nodes in the mask. I don't know if it
always worked like this, or if we did this in the memoryless nodes
series...
>
> > Index: Linux/mm/mempolicy.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- Linux.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 11:25:17.000000000 -0500
> > +++ Linux/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 16:03:11.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mpol_check_policy(int mode, n
> > return -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
> > - return nodes_subset(*nodes, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> Hmmm... That is a pretty drastic change.
the nodes_subset() would always return true, once we mask it with
cpuset_current_mems_allowed(), right? mems_allowed can now only contain
nodes with memory and if cpusets are not configured,
cpuset_current_mems_allowed() just returns node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY].
So, I think this is a no-op.
>
> > @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(int mo
> > switch (mode) {
> > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> > policy->v.nodes = *nodes;
> > - nodes_and(policy->v.nodes, policy->v.nodes,
> > - node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> > if (nodes_weight(policy->v.nodes) == 0) {
> > kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy);
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Do we really need to remove these lines if we change set_mempolicy?
Again, with the change to contextualize_policy(), the nodemask is
guaranteed to only contain nodes with memory, so this was redundant.
>
> > @@ -426,9 +424,13 @@ static int contextualize_policy(int mode
> > if (!nodes)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset.
> > + * This is guaranteed to be a subset of nodes with memory.
> > + */
> > cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
> > - if (!cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed(*nodes))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > +
> > return mpol_check_policy(mode, nodes);
> > }
> >
>
> Ditto?
This is the main change in the patch: masking off the invalid nodes
[like sys_mbind() did inline] rather than complaining about them.
However, after I finish testing, I will post an update to this patch
which restores some of the error checks that this change lost.
>
> > @@ -797,7 +799,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start
> > if (end == start)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (mpol_check_policy(mode, nmask))
> > + if (contextualize_policy(mode, nmask))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > new = mpol_new(mode, nmask);
> > @@ -915,10 +917,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long
> > err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> > - /* Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset */
> > - nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed);
> > -#endif
>
> Would just removing #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS work? mems_allowed falls back to
> node_possible_map.... Shouldnt that be node_online_map?
I removed this because I changed do_mbind() to call the revised
contextualize_policy() that does exactly this masking. I didn't see any
reason to leave the duplicate code there.
I think that mems_allowed now falls back to nodes with memory. Or it
should in the current code. When Paul adds his new magic, that might
change.
Lee
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-06 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-02 8:12 [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 8:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 9:09 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-02 9:09 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-02 9:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 9:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 11:30 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-02 11:30 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-04 19:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-04 19:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-04 18:20 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-04 18:20 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 9:26 ` [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] " KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 9:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 21:57 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 22:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-06 16:00 ` Lee Schermerhorn [this message]
2008-02-05 22:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-06 2:17 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-06 16:11 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-06 6:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-06 17:38 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-07 8:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-08 19:45 ` [PATCH 2.6.24-mm1] Mempolicy: silently restrict nodemask to allowed nodes V3 Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-08 19:45 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-09 18:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-09 18:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-10 5:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-10 5:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-10 5:49 ` Greg KH
2008-02-10 5:49 ` Greg KH
2008-02-10 7:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-10 7:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-10 10:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-10 10:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-11 16:47 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-11 16:47 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-12 0:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 1:00 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 1:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 2:05 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 3:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 3:17 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 15:08 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-12 19:06 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-13 0:07 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-13 0:42 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-13 16:32 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-13 18:32 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-13 18:56 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-12 4:30 ` [PATCH for 2.6.24][regression fix] " KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 4:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 5:06 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 5:06 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-12 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-12 13:18 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 13:18 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 10:17 ` [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 10:17 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 11:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 11:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 19:56 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 19:56 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 20:51 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 20:51 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 21:03 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 21:03 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 21:33 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 21:33 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 22:04 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 22:04 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 22:44 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 22:44 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 22:50 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 22:50 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2008-02-05 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2008-02-05 15:23 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 15:23 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 18:27 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 18:27 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 19:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 19:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 19:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 19:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 20:06 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 20:06 ` David Rientjes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1202313618.5453.29.camel@localhost \
--to=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=eric.whitney@hp.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.