Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:56:44 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "bwidawsk@kernel.org" <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix policy_nodemask() for
 MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY case
Message-ID: <YupwjN6K6e6V3y+Q@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <YuidPA9knCOoaT0c@FVFYT0MHHV2J>
 <Yui7hWZYMX31ktOr@feng-skl>
 <YujGy8EIeZc1Avc7@FVFYT0MHHV2J>
 <YujUyCIBjFj+FzX5@feng-skl>
 <YujoLQt09Js/sSQL@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YuoYkPk+YzdPNvmN@feng-snb>
 <YuolieBmdaIzoS3t@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Yuqs+BTpfh9/PjtP@feng-clx>
 <Yupb+1mmn9sQ/G8K@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Yurd2iYp4XMIYM7T@feng-clx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yurd2iYp4XMIYM7T@feng-clx>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 04-08-22 04:43:06, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:28:59PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > +struct mempolicy *policy_mbind_nodemask(gfp_t gfp)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMPOLICY
> > +	struct mempolicy *mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * only enforce MBIND which overlaps with cpuset policy (from policy_nodemask)
> > +	 * specifically for hugetlb case
> > +	 */
> > +	if (mpol->mode == MPOL_BIND &&
> > +		(apply_policy_zone(mpol, gfp_zone(gfp)) &&
> > +		 cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->nodes))
> > +		return &mpol->nodes;
> > +#endif
> > +	return NULL;
> 
> I saw the logic is not changed, and it confused me that if there is
> no qualified node, it will still return NULL which effectively equals
> node_states[N_MEMORY], while I think it should return a all zero
> nodemasks.

This is a separate thing and I have to admit that the existing code is
rather non-intuitive or even broken. I guess we do not care all that
much because MBIND with completely non-overlapping cpusets is just a
broken configuration. I am not sure this case is interesting or even
supported.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs