Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:04:46 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Interestingly, on ia64, the top cpuset mems_allowed gets set to all
> > > > possible nodes, while on x86_64, it gets set to on-line nodes [or nodes
> > > > with memory].  Maybe this is a to support hot-plug?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > numactl --interleave=all simply passes a nodemask with all bits set, so if 
> > > cpuset_current_mems_allowed includes offline nodes from node_possible_map, 
> > > then mpol_set_nodemask() doesn't mask them off.
> > > 
> > > Seems like we could handle this strictly in mempolicies without worrying 
> > > about top_cpuset like in the following?
> > 
> > This patch seems band-aid patch. it will change memory-hotplug behavior.
> > Please imazine following scenario:
> > 
> > 1. numactl interleave=all process-A
> > 2. memory hot-add
> > 
> > before 2.6.30:
> > 		-> process-A can use hot-added memory
> > 
> > your proposal patch:
> > 		-> process-A can't use hot-added memory
> > 
> 
> IMHO, the application itseld should be notifed to change its mempolicy by
> hot-plug script on the host. While an application uses interleave, a new node
> hot-added is just a noise. I think "How pages are interleaved" should not be
> changed implicitly. Then, checking at set_mempolicy() seems sane. If notified,
> application can do page migration and rebuild his mapping in ideal way.

Do you really want ABI change?



> BUT I don't linke init->mem_allowed contains N_POSSIBLE...it should be initialized
> to N_HIGH_MEMORY, IMHO.




--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>