From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"bwidawsk@kernel.org" <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY case
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 04:43:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yurd2iYp4XMIYM7T@feng-clx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yupb+1mmn9sQ/G8K@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:28:59PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 04-08-22 01:14:32, Feng Tang wrote:
> [...]
> > Ok, I change it as below:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to make this allowed_mems_nr specific to be
> explicit about the intention?
Yes, it is.
> Not that I feel strongly about that.
>
> > ---
> > mm/hugetlb.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Not even compile tested
> include/linux/mempolicy.h | 12 ------------
> mm/hugetlb.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> index 668389b4b53d..e38b0ef20b8b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> @@ -151,13 +151,6 @@ extern bool mempolicy_in_oom_domain(struct task_struct *tsk,
> const nodemask_t *mask);
> extern nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy);
>
> -static inline nodemask_t *policy_nodemask_current(gfp_t gfp)
> -{
> - struct mempolicy *mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> -
> - return policy_nodemask(gfp, mpol);
> -}
> -
> extern unsigned int mempolicy_slab_node(void);
>
> extern enum zone_type policy_zone;
> @@ -294,11 +287,6 @@ static inline void mpol_put_task_policy(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> }
>
> -static inline nodemask_t *policy_nodemask_current(gfp_t gfp)
> -{
> - return NULL;
> -}
> -
> static inline bool mpol_is_preferred_many(struct mempolicy *pol)
> {
> return false;
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index a18c071c294e..6cacbc9b15a1 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4330,18 +4330,34 @@ static int __init default_hugepagesz_setup(char *s)
> }
> __setup("default_hugepagesz=", default_hugepagesz_setup);
>
> +struct mempolicy *policy_mbind_nodemask(gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMPOLICY
> + struct mempolicy *mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> +
> + /*
> + * only enforce MBIND which overlaps with cpuset policy (from policy_nodemask)
> + * specifically for hugetlb case
> + */
> + if (mpol->mode == MPOL_BIND &&
> + (apply_policy_zone(mpol, gfp_zone(gfp)) &&
> + cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->nodes))
> + return &mpol->nodes;
> +#endif
> + return NULL;
I saw the logic is not changed, and it confused me that if there is
no qualified node, it will still return NULL which effectively equals
node_states[N_MEMORY], while I think it should return a all zero
nodemasks.
Thanks,
Feng
> +}
> +
> static unsigned int allowed_mems_nr(struct hstate *h)
> {
> int node;
> unsigned int nr = 0;
> - nodemask_t *mpol_allowed;
> + nodemask_t *mbind_nodemask;
> unsigned int *array = h->free_huge_pages_node;
> gfp_t gfp_mask = htlb_alloc_mask(h);
>
> - mpol_allowed = policy_nodemask_current(gfp_mask);
> -
> + mbind_nodemask = policy_mbind_nodemask(gfp_mask);
> for_each_node_mask(node, cpuset_current_mems_allowed) {
> - if (!mpol_allowed || node_isset(node, *mpol_allowed))
> + if (!mbind_nodemask || node_isset(node, *mbind_nodemask))
> nr += array[node];
> }
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-03 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-01 8:42 [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY case Muchun Song
2022-08-01 9:06 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-01 9:26 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-02 3:42 ` Muchun Song
2022-08-02 5:52 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-02 6:40 ` Muchun Song
2022-08-02 7:39 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-02 9:02 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-03 6:41 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-03 7:36 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-03 17:14 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-03 11:28 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-03 20:43 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2022-08-03 12:56 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-03 21:08 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-03 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-04 8:27 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-04 10:43 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-04 13:03 ` [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: add dedicated func to get 'allowed' nodemask for current process Feng Tang
2022-08-04 13:36 ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-04 22:37 ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-05 0:06 ` Feng Tang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yurd2iYp4XMIYM7T@feng-clx \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bwidawsk@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).