From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cpuset: record old_mems_allowed in struct cpuset
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:58:44 +0800
Message-ID: <51B05D54.4080205@huawei.com>
References: <51AF0183.8070602@huawei.com> <51AF01E8.8080205@huawei.com>
	<20130605194522.GG10693@mtj.dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130605194522.GG10693-9pTldWuhBndy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/containers/>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Containers <containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>, LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org

On 2013/6/6 3:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:16:24PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> @@ -1425,7 +1435,6 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>  	 * Change mm, possibly for multiple threads in a threadgroup. This is
>>  	 * expensive and may sleep.
>>  	 */
>> -	cpuset_attach_nodemask_to = cs->mems_allowed;
>>  	mm = get_task_mm(leader);
>>  	if (mm) {
>>  		mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
> 
> This looks a bit suspicious to me.  Now we're setting mm's nodemask to
> guarantee_online_mems() output rather than cs->mems_allowed.  Is this
> change intended?  If so, it probably deserves an explanation in the
> description?
> 

It's possible that cs->mems_allowed is empty, but I should have left
it as it is, as it's not related to this patch.