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;
Message-ID: <c8d21c1e-1bcb-e995-9b58-01ea3320085e@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 2 May 2023 09:45:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: mbind MPOL_INTERLEAVE existing pages
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
References: <20230501185836.GA85110@monkey>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20230501185836.GA85110@monkey>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/1/23 20:58, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I received a question from a customer that was trying to move pages via
> the mbind system call.  In this specific case, the system had two nodes
> and all pages in the range were already present on node 0.  They then
> called mbind with mode MPOL_INTERLEAVE and the MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL flag.  Their
> expectation was that half the pages in the range would be moved to node 1
> in an interleaved pattern.
> 
> In the above situation, no pages actually get moved.  This is because mbind
> creates a list of pages to be moved via:
> 
> 	ret = queue_pages_range(mm, start, end, nmask,
>                           flags | MPOL_MF_INVERT, &pagelist);
> 
> No page will be added to the list as queue_folio_required is called for each
> page to determine if it resides within the set of nodes.  And, all page are
> within the set.
> 
> I have reread the mbind man page several times and agree that one might
> expect MPOL_INTERLEAVE with MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL to move pages and create an
> interleaved pattern.  My question is should we:
> - Change mbind so that pages are moved to an interleaved pattern?

I guess it could be worth trying, if there's a use case. And hope nobody
else is depending on the current behavior and will complain afterwards :)

> - Update the documentation to be more explicit?
> 
> I can do either, but just wanted to get opinions before starting.