Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756053Ab2E3VWx (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:22:53 -0400 Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:51979 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753526Ab2E3VWw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:22:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:22:36 +0100 From: Ben Hutchings To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Dave Jones , Mel Gorman , stable@vger.kernel.org, hughd@google.com, sivanich@sgi.com Message-ID: <20120530212235.GB20051@decadent.org.uk> References: <1338368529-21784-1-git-send-email-kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> <20120530184638.GU27374@one.firstfloor.org> <20120530193234.GV27374@one.firstfloor.org> <20120530195244.GX27374@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@decadent.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on shadbolt.decadent.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2045 Lines: 46 On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:00:55PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:42:42PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists. > >> > > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have. > >> > > > >> > > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints? > >> > > >> > Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy" > >> > Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup. > >> > >> Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory > >> policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues. > > > > Migration on the page level is needed for the memory error handling. > > > > Updates: you mean not allowing to set the policy when there are already > > multiple mappers? I could see that causing some unexpected behaviour. Presumably > > a standard database will only set it at the beginning, but I don't know > > if that would work for all users. > > We don't need to kill migration core. We only need to kill that mbind(2) updates > vma->policy of shmem. [...] So should I (and Greg) drop 'mm: mempolicy: Let vma_merge and vma_split handle vma->vm_policy linkages' from the pending stable releases? Or is that OK as an interim fix until these changes go into mainline? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- 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/