Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756035Ab2E3VZP (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:25:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:64088 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753246Ab2E3VZN (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:25:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4FC69035.3000509@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:25:09 -0400 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Hutchings CC: KOSAKI Motohiro , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mempolicy memory corruption fixlet 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> <20120530212235.GB20051@decadent.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120530212235.GB20051@decadent.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1948 Lines: 46 (5/30/12 5:22 PM), Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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? Please drop. It screw up mbind(2). -- 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/