Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-42969-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:12:16 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
To: Chunsheng Luo <luochunsheng@ustc.edu>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: check home_node is in the nodes of policy
Message-ID: <ZbfAUEx0+2d76KWz@memverge.com>
References: <20240126132240.24518-1-luochunsheng@ustc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240126132240.24518-1-luochunsheng@ustc.edu>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:
	=?us-ascii?Q?AvFefetvGoBPGPcN/797VscDIcCb1KkP+NZadj4bisCKsZZfulYolo6MZ0Po?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ry4RkMfcpT9an7Mlm3TfpDmF2VKvyK1eetzaT0jon53Bx84kP2U1/Ki+DFG5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mJNihsBRB0r9ntd5Y7EOSW6TjvJ+pozvbXb7nWpg1IAKk7dwab1ktGXaB+71?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?fACHGBi20l7cXAvrbL8qxHh4F0u04LmlZj2VwwM0PzPvQ8Aplr7YNKptj6GX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?XFaX2WBlWSJcoftcmDs1Z7ePX9XdnTQi3bGRFG5jHvEzCLS16Y1HriHqzA4v?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RntGNj4vRD+0ynVEKINbts4DuKxWFwG2f905i6BWe3k7QO/m52Z2sKetupxc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KjVyxYD7zWCSMAF+MLX92UEkhTEitsJyqSGm0h8sUjd6VKavJupsxgtdO3n3?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Ydtb5+2/mH2bwhDiH89nvQUYSgJeyAEF4YX4zcFPeDF57UlH+hTAoglMBdEQ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rXSC9AGt6gTgt3HKiYI4LMJPIPNGMtYs49LOXU+wxcqairmJYLFtzbf5PGKT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?2cK3sy2pz8NCNBsqct2A1juh3s6cKLx5Fou3HQLGCJ9rOW4gK2NBhYMz6jB+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?hpaHQmqEV6lta+tZ7YXgEsrqLpg/MOAZwLNOeET86AgSmqHhxV/fEjxlpIkf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?z435waGkQkITMtYrlR3/fgtLZAbbrcHIL5ADqpvpakU/DC/qpL5LpDtu9VwE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?OGZmZupcw3EKbDl6FSyo4/oLdu4KTS8iVd5Jdk0GG9ReaYqshNEBfIpt6sCU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bFixcPum8V6dL4zMrYF8Q9EHLUHWgo3AHb5/FygVDzJ2Wki5c7LKjuU8YuEe?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?hEyofPTwlFmtv4iFonDhoUakizf/+ZGrhUCh7lyCupZKvNFzm9rdq1+BSfAL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?OHljpGzOuDdKJ8VatazG66/5r2nkCx1iMf1B1eOMP31/D7PWMez8JhZwjh6N?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ShgVcin1WFh2yJ5q+K1XD0ky9QbwrQGQxDlN4IrweAOS3TTzqoYIA6e2P4n7?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?8+UE9bJ+LQWJRpBOGR74sICn756sH4eh1oKhGCCO+WLz7rfXEC7dKkpHKic6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nLqBer0xdfUzuP08yNKXIXnGqDB3yQGfc/EYpoRf4m82vR7IZtO4CDBzGIWB?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?kcTy87Xq1EY95A6YO9jnN/5HyCuhFE0K3MJ2XRaO130JszjaY+cOTH4DB+C4?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DbhIXbu3Ufl1VxKCMsbrO43YkOCWdrkrbemwtMYabkoXVCmmm1Y2fh30T7+S?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?zDjOGYMxHvA70y/4byPSTMM6dhwLXavtvhwd0raQTSzQ+1jC42zcmHZOLKCh?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DrjE66+R+WWNO0AMGMzGZKDDw3f7zVib+U5/TrrWV1Ipg41+3fFFypaxafy0?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?yIkioLUg6E6NzWutIyg6DUWn3FGzDfH9mI79mkmrnMSRsmllkR0vWPX6XlrP?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?aDnUCDZKDjzSVxncvWRyGvpbg0EUafZdCZZH+W9SrisEmtJY7BOTuMQ08Rv+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?hgjnRGnQaOPOW+r3O52Xvj4FYGIx1EwKtusYtjImM1t3TQIf8fhL9g6mqQuw?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?VgZlgH+7EfwliuPUpSBgvEJfS6XYPS/dvCUKxD/pScr1pNNY6bZCNKSIiQWa?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Pg=3D=3D?=
X-OriginatorOrg: memverge.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ef5b2062-42b3-48ca-aca1-08dc20dcb22a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SJ0PR17MB5512.namprd17.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2024 15:12:23.6041
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 5c90cb59-37e7-4c81-9c07-00473d5fb682
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: rRkRBHeNITMZNXvM8TU5ayQnkE8/yRm+MmU6gfp1nYEzw2EDrgCF1cNwkzQBW9Wj3bhRa6ILEKaSiQils273jZL7TbgpPD+xehRa/Z3LQQo=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR17MB4154

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:22:40AM -0500, Chunsheng Luo wrote:
> set_mempolicy_home_node should be used after setting the memory
> policy. If the home_node isn't in the nodes of policy, we should
> return failure to avoid misunderstanding.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chunsheng Luo <luochunsheng@ustc.edu>
> ---
>  mm/mempolicy.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 

Since it's not possible to add/remove a node to a mask without also
erasing the home node, this seems reasonable.

e.g. this is what happens presently
mbind(0-2)    :   mask(0,1,2),   home_node(NUMA_NO_NODE)
home_node(3)  :   mask(0,1,2),   home_node(3)
mbind(0-3)    :   mask(0,1,2,3), home_node(NUMA_NO_NODE)

However, it is possible for a cgroup migration or a change to
cpusets.mems_allowed to change a nodemask without somping the home_node.

e.g.:
mbind(2-3)    :   mask(2-3),  home_node(NUMA_NO_NODE)
home_node(3)  :   mask(2-3),  home_node(3)
cpusets(0-1)  :   mask(0-1),  home_node(3)

Should the rebind code also shift the home-node or un-set it accordingly
to keep the mask/home_node behavior consistent with the syscalls?

(see mpol_rebind_nodemask)


> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 10a590ee1c89..9282be2ae18e 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1536,6 +1536,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
>  			err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  			break;
>  		}
> +
> +		if (!node_isset(home_node, old->nodes)) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
>  		new = mpol_dup(old);
>  		if (IS_ERR(new)) {
>  			err = PTR_ERR(new);
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
>