From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node.
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:00:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1202313618.5453.29.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802051406500.14665@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:12 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> > mbind(2), on the other hand, just masks off any nodes in the
> > nodemask that are not included in the caller's mems_allowed.
>
> Ok so we temporarily adopt these semantics for set_mempolicy.
>
> > 1) modify contextualize_policy to just remove the non-allowed
> > nodes, as is currently done in-line for mbind(). This
> > guarantees that the resulting mask includes only nodes with
> > memory.
>
> Right make ssense. we already contextualize for cpusets.
Only for mbind(). set_mempolicy(), via contextualize_policy() was just
returning EINVAL for invalid nodes in the mask. I don't know if it
always worked like this, or if we did this in the memoryless nodes
series...
>
> > Index: Linux/mm/mempolicy.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- Linux.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 11:25:17.000000000 -0500
> > +++ Linux/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 16:03:11.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mpol_check_policy(int mode, n
> > return -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
> > - return nodes_subset(*nodes, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> Hmmm... That is a pretty drastic change.
the nodes_subset() would always return true, once we mask it with
cpuset_current_mems_allowed(), right? mems_allowed can now only contain
nodes with memory and if cpusets are not configured,
cpuset_current_mems_allowed() just returns node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY].
So, I think this is a no-op.
>
> > @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(int mo
> > switch (mode) {
> > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> > policy->v.nodes = *nodes;
> > - nodes_and(policy->v.nodes, policy->v.nodes,
> > - node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> > if (nodes_weight(policy->v.nodes) == 0) {
> > kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy);
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Do we really need to remove these lines if we change set_mempolicy?
Again, with the change to contextualize_policy(), the nodemask is
guaranteed to only contain nodes with memory, so this was redundant.
>
> > @@ -426,9 +424,13 @@ static int contextualize_policy(int mode
> > if (!nodes)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset.
> > + * This is guaranteed to be a subset of nodes with memory.
> > + */
> > cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
> > - if (!cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed(*nodes))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > +
> > return mpol_check_policy(mode, nodes);
> > }
> >
>
> Ditto?
This is the main change in the patch: masking off the invalid nodes
[like sys_mbind() did inline] rather than complaining about them.
However, after I finish testing, I will post an update to this patch
which restores some of the error checks that this change lost.
>
> > @@ -797,7 +799,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start
> > if (end == start)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (mpol_check_policy(mode, nmask))
> > + if (contextualize_policy(mode, nmask))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > new = mpol_new(mode, nmask);
> > @@ -915,10 +917,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long
> > err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> > - /* Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset */
> > - nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed);
> > -#endif
>
> Would just removing #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS work? mems_allowed falls back to
> node_possible_map.... Shouldnt that be node_online_map?
I removed this because I changed do_mbind() to call the revised
contextualize_policy() that does exactly this masking. I didn't see any
reason to leave the duplicate code there.
I think that mems_allowed now falls back to nodes with memory. Or it
should in the current code. When Paul adds his new magic, that might
change.
Lee
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-06 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-02 8:12 [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 9:09 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-02 9:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-02 11:30 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-04 19:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-04 18:20 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 9:26 ` [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] " KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 21:57 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 22:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-06 16:00 ` Lee Schermerhorn [this message]
2008-02-05 22:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-06 2:17 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-06 16:11 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-06 6:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-06 17:38 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-07 8:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-08 19:45 ` [PATCH 2.6.24-mm1] Mempolicy: silently restrict nodemask to allowed nodes V3 Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-09 18:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-10 5:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-10 5:49 ` Greg KH
2008-02-10 7:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-10 10:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-11 16:47 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-12 4:30 ` [PATCH for 2.6.24][regression fix] " KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-12 5:06 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-12 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-12 13:18 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 10:17 ` [2.6.24-rc8-mm1][regression?] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 11:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-02-05 19:56 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 20:51 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 21:03 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 21:33 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 22:04 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 22:44 ` David Rientjes
2008-02-05 22:50 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2008-02-05 15:23 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 18:27 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-02-05 19:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 19:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-05 20:06 ` David Rientjes
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=1202313618.5453.29.camel@localhost \
--to=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=eric.whitney@hp.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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