From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node. From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20080205153326.5c820dbc.pj@sgi.com> References: <20080202165054.F491.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080202090914.GA27723@one.firstfloor.org> <20080202180536.F494.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1202149243.5028.61.camel@localhost> <20080205041755.3411b5cc.pj@sgi.com> <20080205145141.ae658c12.pj@sgi.com> <20080205153326.5c820dbc.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:04:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1202249070.5332.58.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: David Rientjes , kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, clameter@sgi.com, mel@csn.ul.ie List-ID: On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 15:33 -0600, Paul Jackson wrote: > David wrote: > > It would be disappointing to see a lot of work done to fix > > The suggested patch of KOSAKI Motohiro didn't look like a lot of work to me. > > I continue to prefer not to hijack this thread for that other discussion. > Just presenting your position and calling it "simple" is misleading. > The discussion so far has involved over a hundred messages over months, > and certainly your position, nor mine for that matter, obtained concensus. > > How does the patch of KOSAKI Motohiro, earlier in this thread, look to you? > Paul, It wasn't clear to me whether Kosaki-san's patch required a modified numactl/libnuma or not. I think so, because that patch doesn't change the error return in contextualize_policy() and in mpol_check_policy(). My modified numactl/libnuma avoids this by only passing in allowed mems fetch via get_mempolicy() with the new MEMS_ALLOWED flags. The patch I just posted doesn't depend on the numactl changes and seems quite minimal to me. I think it cleans up the differences between set_mempolicy() and mbind(), as well. However, some may take exception to the change in behavior--silently ignoring dis-allowed nodes in set_mempolicy(). Also, your cpuset/mempolicy work will probably need to undo the unconditional masking in contextualize_policy() and/or save the original node mask somewhere... Lee -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org