From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE156B0038 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id w84so20293156wmg.1 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x243.google.com (mail-lf0-x243.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c07::243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m194si12007157lfm.257.2016.09.20.08.56.05 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id b71so343820lfg.1 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:56:02 +0200 From: Piotr Kwapulinski Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy.c: forbid static or relative flags for local NUMA mode Message-ID: <20160920155601.GB3899@home> References: <20160918112943.1645-1-kwapulinski.piotr@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, vbabka@suse.cz, mhocko@kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, liangchen.linux@gmail.com, nzimmer@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:57:17PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote: > > > The MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES and MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flags are irrelevant > > when setting them for MPOL_LOCAL NUMA memory policy via set_mempolicy. > > Return the "invalid argument" from set_mempolicy whenever > > any of these flags is passed along with MPOL_LOCAL. > > It is consistent with MPOL_PREFERRED passed with empty nodemask. > > It also slightly shortens the execution time in paths where these flags > > are used e.g. when trying to rebind the NUMA nodes for changes in > > cgroups cpuset mems (mpol_rebind_preferred()) or when just printing > > the mempolicy structure (/proc/PID/numa_maps). > > Isolated tests done. > > > > Signed-off-by: Piotr Kwapulinski > > Acked-by: David Rientjes > > There wasn't an MPOL_LOCAL when I introduced either of these flags, it's > an oversight to allow them to be passed. > > Want to try to update set_mempolicy(2) with the procedure outlined in > https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/patches.html as well? Yes, why not ? I'll put a note about it. -- Piotr Kwapulinski -- 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