Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already on the target nodes

Yang Shi
2020-01-02T22:58:38Z

On 12/30/19 7:49 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/18/19 2:17 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 17-12-19 23:36:09, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2
>>>> index 2d96468fa..1bf1053f2 100644
>>>> --- a/man2/move_pages.2
>>>> +++ b/man2/move_pages.2
>>>> @@ -191,12 +191,6 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate pages of a kernel thread.
>>>> .B ENODEV
>>>> One of the target nodes is not online.
>>>> .TP
>>>> -.B ENOENT
>>>> -No pages were found that require moving.
>>>> -All pages are either already
>>>> -on the target node, not present, had an invalid address or could not be
>>>> -moved because they were mapped by multiple processes.
>>>> -.TP
>>>> .B EPERM
>>>> The caller specified
>>>> .B MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL
>>>>
>>>> ...But I'm not sure if we should change the implementation, instead, so
>>>> that it *can* return ENOENT. That's the main question to resolve before
>>>> creating any more patches, I think.
>>> I would start by dropping any note about ENOENT first. I am not really
>>> sure there is a reasonable usecase for it but maybe somebody comes up
>>> with something and only then we should consider it.
>>>
>>> Feel free to add
>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>>
>>> ideally with a kernel commit which removed the ENOENT.
>> A quick audit doesn't show kernel code or comment notes about ENOENT
>> wrongly. The status could be set as ENOENT if the page is not present
>> (follow_page() returns NULL), and man page does match what kernel
>> does.
> Doesn't the function one layer up then consume the ENOENT?

No, it doesn't. The return value would be reset unconditionally by
store_status(). This is what the man page patch tries to correct.

>
> Eric