Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762126AbYBEWMV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:12:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760533AbYBEWMO (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:12:14 -0500 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:50742 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760065AbYBEWMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:12:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:12:11 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Lee Schermerhorn cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Paul Jackson , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Eric Whitney Subject: Re: [2.6.24 regression][BUGFIX] numactl --interleave=all doesn't works on memoryless node. In-Reply-To: <1202248652.5332.51.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20080202180536.F494.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1202149243.5028.61.camel@localhost> <20080205163406.270B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1202248652.5332.51.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2786 Lines: 85 On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > mbind(2), on the other hand, just masks off any nodes in the > nodemask that are not included in the caller's mems_allowed. Ok so we temporarily adopt these semantics for set_mempolicy. > 1) modify contextualize_policy to just remove the non-allowed > nodes, as is currently done in-line for mbind(). This > guarantees that the resulting mask includes only nodes with > memory. Right make ssense. we already contextualize for cpusets. > Index: Linux/mm/mempolicy.c > =================================================================== > --- Linux.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 11:25:17.000000000 -0500 > +++ Linux/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 16:03:11.000000000 -0500 > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mpol_check_policy(int mode, n > return -EINVAL; > break; > } > - return nodes_subset(*nodes, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) ? 0 : -EINVAL; > + return 0; > } Hmmm... That is a pretty drastic change. > @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(int mo > switch (mode) { > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE: > policy->v.nodes = *nodes; > - nodes_and(policy->v.nodes, policy->v.nodes, > - node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]); > if (nodes_weight(policy->v.nodes) == 0) { > kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy); > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); Do we really need to remove these lines if we change set_mempolicy? > @@ -426,9 +424,13 @@ static int contextualize_policy(int mode > if (!nodes) > return 0; > > + /* > + * Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset. > + * This is guaranteed to be a subset of nodes with memory. > + */ > cpuset_update_task_memory_state(); > - if (!cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed(*nodes)) > - return -EINVAL; > + nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, cpuset_current_mems_allowed); > + > return mpol_check_policy(mode, nodes); > } > Ditto? > @@ -797,7 +799,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start > if (end == start) > return 0; > > - if (mpol_check_policy(mode, nmask)) > + if (contextualize_policy(mode, nmask)) > return -EINVAL; > > new = mpol_new(mode, nmask); > @@ -915,10 +917,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long > err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode); > if (err) > return err; > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS > - /* Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset */ > - nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed); > -#endif Would just removing #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS work? mems_allowed falls back to node_possible_map.... Shouldnt that be node_online_map? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/