lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PART6 Patch] mempolicy: fix is_valid_nodemask()
(2012/11/01 3:21), David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Wen Congyang wrote:
>
>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> is_valid_nodemask() is introduced by 19770b32. but it does not match
>> its comments, because it does not check the zone which > policy_zone.
>>
>> Also in b377fd, this commits told us, if highest zone is ZONE_MOVABLE,
>> we should also apply memory policies to it. so ZONE_MOVABLE should be valid zone
>> for policies. is_valid_nodemask() need to be changed to match it.
>>
>> Fix: check all zones, even its zoneid > policy_zone.
>> Use nodes_intersects() instead open code to check it.
>>
>
> This changes the semantics of MPOL_BIND to be considerably different than
> what it is today: slab allocations are no longer bound by such a policy
> which isn't consistent with what userspace expects or is specified by
> set_mempolicy() and there's no way, with your patch, to actually specify
> that we don't care about ZONE_MOVABLE and that the slab allocations
> _should_ actually be allocated on movable-only zones. You have to respect
> cases where people aren't interested in node hotplug and not cause a
> regression.
>

I'm sorry if I misunderstand somehing....
I think people doesn't insterested in node-hotplug will never have MOVABLE_ZONE.
What causes regression ?

Thanks,
-Kame






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-02 07:41    [W:0.048 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site