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:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 15:37:17 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <hansen.dave@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: add dedicated func to get 'allowed'
 nodemask for current process
Message-Id: <20220804153717.eea592a171accd245a0cc7d8@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <YuvLcBp34Ac6Pd7a@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <YuuitMLOYqBcXMR3@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <20220804130342.63355-1-feng.tang@intel.com>
        <YuvLcBp34Ac6Pd7a@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 15:36:48 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:

> On Thu 04-08-22 21:03:42, Feng Tang wrote:
> > Muchun Song found that after MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy was introduced
> > in commit b27abaccf8e8 ("mm/mempolicy: add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes")
> > [1], the policy_nodemask_current()'s semantics for this new policy
> > has been changed, which returns 'preferred' nodes instead of 'allowed'
> > nodes, and could hurt the usage of its caller in hugetlb:
> > allowed_mems_nr().
> 
> The acutal user visible effect description is missing here. AFAIU it
> would be this.
> 
> With the changed semantic of policy_nodemask_current a taks with
> MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy could fail to get its reservation even though
> it can fall back to other nodes (either defined by cpusets or all online
> nodes) for that reservation failing mmap calles unnecessarily early.
> 
> The fix is to not consider MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for reservations at all
> because they, unlike MPOL_MBIND, do not pose any actual hard constrain.

And is this Fixes: b27abaccf8e8 ("mm/mempolicy: add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY
for multiple preferred nodes")?