From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933157AbcITP4I (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:56:08 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:34527 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932650AbcITP4H (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:56:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:56:02 +0200 From: Piotr Kwapulinski 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 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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: 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