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

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> > _Direct_ use of task->mems_allowed is only in cpuset and mempolicy.
> > If no policy is used, it's not checked.
> > (See alloc_pages_current())
> > 
> > memory hotplug's notifier just updates top_cpuset's mems_allowed.
> > But it doesn't update each task's ones.
> 
> That's not true, cpuset_track_online_nodes() will call 
> scan_for_empty_cpusets() on top_cpuset, which works from the root to 
> leaves updating each cpuset's mems_allowed by intersecting it with 
> node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY].  This is done as part of the MEM_OFFLINE 
> callback in the cpuset code, so N_HIGH_MEMORY represents the nodes still 
> online.
> 
yes.

> The nodemask for each task is updated to reflect the removal of a node and 
> it calls mpol_rebind_mm() with the new nodemask.
> 
yes, but _not_ updated at online.

> This is admittedly pretty late to be removing mems from cpusets (and 
> mempolicies) when the unplug has already happened.  We should look at 
> doing the rebind for MEM_GOING_OFFLINE.
> 
Hm.

What I felt at reading cpuset/mempolicy again is that it's too complex ;)
The 1st question is why mems_allowed which can be 1024bytes when max_node=4096
is copied per tasks....
And mempolicy code uses too much nodemask_t on stack.

I'll try some, today, including this bug-fix.

Thanks,
-Kame






--
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>