From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E586DC47080 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 00:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5DD6135C for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 00:55:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6B5DD6135C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 97CFC8D0002; Mon, 31 May 2021 20:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 92D326B006E; Mon, 31 May 2021 20:55:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7CEFD8D0002; Mon, 31 May 2021 20:55:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0003.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5266B006C for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 20:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEED8180AD802 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 00:55:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78203336400.20.49EE90B Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E0BC00CBDC for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 00:55:07 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: tIDZtPyqU2GgKkhFKbY+zpVlap5D3vBNcrQ9Y5ngLzk8k65t34tOdNsoLhcTRhOkxhf+t2eGO4 bf7b8jwzvqog== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10001"; a="264633721" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,238,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="264633721" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 May 2021 17:55:17 -0700 IronPort-SDR: Lb05pGGMDVCHUzbYxbAuc3yv31Gl68Ovcs1wQxU9doNNNRp7pnC2Z8YKmSRh/SCAhKiF6HCYOP bSpcnqNXpqWg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,238,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="445137100" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2021 17:55:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:55:13 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Message-ID: <20210601005513.GA15828@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1622469956-82897-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210531144128.e69aaf2904e83ae170f00f06@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210531144128.e69aaf2904e83ae170f00f06@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B5E0BC00CBDC Authentication-Results: imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.31) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Stat-Signature: fpw7enrtkb1ha9dqo6qiuapskde5jnch X-HE-Tag: 1622508907-586561 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Andrew, Thanks for reviewing and taking the patches. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 02:41:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2021 22:05:53 +0800 Feng Tang wrote: > > > We've posted v4 patchset introducing a new "perfer-many" memory policy > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1615952410-36895-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com/ , > > for which Michal Hocko gave many comments while pointing out some > > problems, and we also found some semantics confusion about 'prefer' > > and 'local' policy, as well as some duplicated code. This patchset > > tries to address them. Please help to review, thanks! > > > > The patchset has been run with some sanity test like 'stress-ng' > > and 'ltp', and no problem found. > > None of the above is suitable for the [0/n] overall description. I > copied-n-pasted the v1 cover letter from the above link. Please check > that it is all still correct and up to date. If not, please send along > replacement text, thanks. I should make the cover-letter more descriptive. The link above is another patchset to introduce a new memory policy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, while these 3 patches are preparation work for it, to make it easier for a new policy to be hooked in. So how about the following text: Current memory policy code has some confusing and ambiguous part about MPOL_LOCAL policy, as it is handled as a faked MPOL_PREFERRED one, and there are many places having to distinguish them. Also the nodemask intersection check needs cleanup to be more explicit for OOM use, and handle MPOL_INTERLEAVE correctly. This patchset cleans up these and unifies the parameter sanity check for mbind() and set_mempolicy(). Please feel free to modify it, thanks! - Feng