All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:00:19 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111117160019.c8bd45ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111171507340.9933@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:08:08 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
> 
> c0ff7453bb5c ("cpuset,mm: fix no node to alloc memory when changing
> cpuset's mems") adds get_mems_allowed() to prevent the set of allowed
> nodes from changing for a thread.  This causes any update to a set of
> allowed nodes to stall until put_mems_allowed() is called.
> 
> This stall is unncessary, however, if at least one node remains unchanged
> in the update to the set of allowed nodes.  This was addressed by
> 89e8a244b97e ("cpusets: avoid looping when storing to mems_allowed if one
> node remains set"), but it's still possible that an empty nodemask may be
> read from a mempolicy because the old nodemask may be remapped to the new
> nodemask during rebind.  To prevent this, only avoid the stall if there
> is no mempolicy for the thread being changed.
> 
> This is a temporary solution until all reads from mempolicy nodemasks can
> be guaranteed to not be empty without the get_mems_allowed()
> synchronization.
> 
> Also moves the check for nodemask intersection inside task_lock() so that
> tsk->mems_allowed cannot change.  This ensures that nothing can set this
> tsk's mems_allowed out from under us and also protects tsk->mempolicy.

Nothing in this changelog makes me understand why you think we need this
change in 3.2.  What are the user-visible effects of this change?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:00:19 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111117160019.c8bd45ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111171507340.9933@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:08:08 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask
> 
> c0ff7453bb5c ("cpuset,mm: fix no node to alloc memory when changing
> cpuset's mems") adds get_mems_allowed() to prevent the set of allowed
> nodes from changing for a thread.  This causes any update to a set of
> allowed nodes to stall until put_mems_allowed() is called.
> 
> This stall is unncessary, however, if at least one node remains unchanged
> in the update to the set of allowed nodes.  This was addressed by
> 89e8a244b97e ("cpusets: avoid looping when storing to mems_allowed if one
> node remains set"), but it's still possible that an empty nodemask may be
> read from a mempolicy because the old nodemask may be remapped to the new
> nodemask during rebind.  To prevent this, only avoid the stall if there
> is no mempolicy for the thread being changed.
> 
> This is a temporary solution until all reads from mempolicy nodemasks can
> be guaranteed to not be empty without the get_mems_allowed()
> synchronization.
> 
> Also moves the check for nodemask intersection inside task_lock() so that
> tsk->mems_allowed cannot change.  This ensures that nothing can set this
> tsk's mems_allowed out from under us and also protects tsk->mempolicy.

Nothing in this changelog makes me understand why you think we need this
change in 3.2.  What are the user-visible effects of this change?

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-18  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-16 21:08 [patch for-3.2-rc3] cpusets: stall when updating mems_allowed for mempolicy or disjoint nodemask David Rientjes
2011-11-16 21:08 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-17  8:29 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17  8:29   ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17 21:33   ` David Rientjes
2011-11-17 21:33     ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18  9:52     ` Miao Xie
2011-11-18  9:52       ` Miao Xie
2011-11-18 23:49       ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 23:49         ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23  2:51         ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23  2:51           ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23  3:32           ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23  3:32             ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23  4:48             ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23  4:48               ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23  6:25               ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23  6:25                 ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23  7:49                 ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23  7:49                   ` Miao Xie
2011-11-23 22:26                   ` David Rientjes
2011-11-23 22:26                     ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24  1:26                     ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24  1:26                       ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24  1:52                       ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24  1:52                         ` David Rientjes
2011-11-24  2:50                         ` Miao Xie
2011-11-24  2:50                           ` Miao Xie
2011-11-17 22:22 ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-17 22:22   ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-17 23:08   ` [patch v2 " David Rientjes
2011-11-17 23:08     ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18  0:00     ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2011-11-18  0:00       ` Andrew Morton
2011-11-18 23:53       ` David Rientjes
2011-11-18 23:53         ` 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=20111117160019.c8bd45ba.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
    --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.