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=-5.2 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 005DFC4708A for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D171D60200 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236290AbhE0NYd (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 09:24:33 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:1977 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236268AbhE0NYb (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 09:24:31 -0400 IronPort-SDR: 32llE6JAEmgZLaVgkGuoHz6LEIxF0vCw6siuo1ZOPi8KgvXqir+U5jBNt1aSOfed9aQrUqz9eh Lca6h4XwABmw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9996"; a="288318936" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,334,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="288318936" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 May 2021 06:22:56 -0700 IronPort-SDR: kCrSAePdirl8WUUcA3KxO+WRkWMqXM3aqQaAYg3nO21XpAdwopT6A42VX9PV3/L2pT9cP3cjLO ih1+dsndgZoQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,334,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="445012012" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2021 06:22:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:22:52 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , 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: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom Message-ID: <20210527132252.GA43221@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1622005302-23027-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1622005302-23027-2-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210527130501.GC7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:15:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 27-05-21 21:05:01, Feng Tang wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:30:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Until now this was not a real problem even for OOM context because > > > alloc_page_interleave is always used for the interleaving policy > > > and that one doesn't use any node mask so the code is not really > > > exercised. With your MPOL_PREFERRED this would no longer be the case. > > > > Given the 'interleave' task may have memory allocated from all nodes, > > shouldn't the mempolicy_nodemask_intersects() return true for 'interleave'? > > or I'm still missing something? > > Well, if you go with the renaming then it should be quite obvious that > any policies which are not a hard binding should return true. Ok, will do the rename. thanks for clarifying! - Feng > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs