Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc5 5/10] mm: manual page migration-rc3 -- sys_migrate_pages-mempolicy-migration-rc3.patch

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 03:59:47PM -0500, Ray Bryant wrote:
> No, it looks like I dropped the ball there.  I thought that the
> vma->vm_policy field was used in that case as well, but it appears
> that the policy is looked up in the tree every time it is used.
> (Can that be right?)  If so, I need to do something else.

Yes, it's like this. I had it originally in vm_policy in this case,
but there were too many corner cases to handle when changing policies
(splitting VMAs of remote processes when a policy is changedetc.), so I 
eventually settled on this.

On the other hand tmpfs is not really memory belonging to a single
process only so it is not clear if process migration should touch
should a shared resource.

> A simple solution to this would be to delete that BUG_ON().  :-)
> (Is this required?  It looks almost like a debugging statement.)

Yes, removing it would be fine.

> I don't see any other BUG() calls that could be tripped by changing
> the node mask underneath a process that is actively allocating
> storage, at least not in mempolicy.c.  Am I overlooking something?

Don't think so.

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>