From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Race in new page migration code? Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:51:26 +0100 References: <20060114155517.GA30543@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601161751.26991.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Monday 16 January 2006 17:28, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > > > It also applies to the policy compliance check. > > > > > > Good point, I missed that: you've inadventently changed the behaviour > > > of sys_mbind when it encounters a zero page from a disallowed node. > > > Another reason to remove your PageReserved test. > > > > The zero page always come from node zero on IA64. I think this is more the > > inadvertent fixing of a bug. The policy compliance check currently fails > > if an address range contains a zero page but node zero is not contained in > > the nodelist. > > To me it sounds more like you introduced a bug than fixed one. > If MPOL_MF_STRICT and the zero page is found but not in the nodelist > demanded, then it's right to refuse, I'd say. If Andi shares your > view that the zero pages should be ignored, I won't argue; but we > shouldn't change behaviour by mistake, without review or comment. I agree with Christoph that the zero page should be ignored - old behaviour was really a bug. -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: email@kvack.org