2007-01-15 23:30:51

by Bob Picco

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind


current->mems_allowed is defined for CONFIG_CPUSETS. This broke !CPUSETS
build. I compiled and linked tested both variants.

Signed-off-by: Bob Picco <[email protected]>

include/linux/cpuset.h | 6 ++++++
mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/mm/mempolicy.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2007-01-15 09:21:58.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/mm/mempolicy.c 2007-01-15 17:51:15.000000000 -0500
@@ -882,9 +882,9 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long
int err;

err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
- nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed);
if (err)
return err;
+ cpuset_nodes_allowed(&nodes);
return do_mbind(start, len, mode, &nodes, flags);
}

Index: linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/include/linux/cpuset.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1.orig/include/linux/cpuset.h 2007-01-15 09:21:32.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.20-rc4-mm1/include/linux/cpuset.h 2007-01-15 14:01:30.000000000 -0500
@@ -75,6 +75,11 @@ static inline int cpuset_do_slab_mem_spr

extern void cpuset_track_online_nodes(void);

+static inline void cpuset_nodes_allowed(nodemask_t *nodes)
+{
+ nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, current->mems_allowed);
+}
+
#else /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */

static inline int cpuset_init_early(void) { return 0; }
@@ -145,6 +150,7 @@ static inline int cpuset_do_slab_mem_spr
}

static inline void cpuset_track_online_nodes(void) {}
+static inline void cpuset_nodes_allowed(nodemask_t *nodes) {}

#endif /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */


2007-01-16 02:43:55

by Paul Jackson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind

You're right about this problemI think that Christoph Lameter
(added to cc list) is working on a fix for this.

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401

2007-01-16 03:51:15

by Christoph Lameter

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> You're right about this problemI think that Christoph Lameter
> (added to cc list) is working on a fix for this.

Cpusets is your thing so I think you could fix this the right way. There
are already two different patches fixing this. Just make it the way that
it fits cpusets.


2007-01-16 04:14:17

by Paul Jackson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind

Christoph wrote:
> Cpusets is your thing so I think you could fix this the right way.

But wasn't it your patch that broke ...

Actually, I'd have blessed Bob Picco's patch, as it's done the right
way, with a cpuset_* macro hook, defined twice in cpuset.h, with and
without CONFIG_CPUSET, where the without case compiles to a no-op.
This is the same way as is used for the couple dozen other cpuset
kernel hooks.

But I thought you were already signed up for this one, so I didn't want
to trample on your efforts.

And, perhaps more important, I understood you had some other patches in
the works that have cpuset hooks. I'm thinking it would be a good idea
to learn how these hooks are done, so we don't have to come around here
again.

How about this ... you take another look at Bob's patch. If it's ok by
you too, then we can both bless it, and that should do it.

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401

2007-01-16 04:46:55

by Paul Jackson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind

Patch looks good - thanks, Bob.

Signed-off-by: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401

2007-01-16 19:48:23

by Christoph Lameter

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUSET related breakage of sys_mbind

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> Patch looks good - thanks, Bob.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

Looks good to me too.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>