From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f69.google.com (mail-lf0-f69.google.com [209.85.215.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA2A6B0069 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 07:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f69.google.com with SMTP id x79so21328515lff.2 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f66.google.com (mail-lf0-f66.google.com. [209.85.215.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j123si1112499lfe.0.2016.10.21.04.52.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f66.google.com with SMTP id x23so5258269lfi.1 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:52:40 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, mempolicy: clean up __GFP_THISNODE confusion in policy_zonelist Message-ID: <20161021115240.GI6045@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161013125958.32155-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <877f92ue91.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877f92ue91.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Anshuman Khandual , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Fri 21-10-16 17:04:50, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > __GFP_THISNODE is documented to enforce the allocation to be satisified > > from the requested node with no fallbacks or placement policy > > enforcements. policy_zonelist seemingly breaks this semantic if the > > current policy is MPOL_MBIND and instead of taking the node it will > > fallback to the first node in the mask if the requested one is not in > > the mask. This is confusing to say the least because it fact we > > shouldn't ever go that path. First tasks shouldn't be scheduled on CPUs > > with nodes outside of their mempolicy binding. And secondly > > policy_zonelist is called only from 3 places: > > - huge_zonelist - never should do __GFP_THISNODE when going this path > > - alloc_pages_vma - which shouldn't depend on __GFP_THISNODE either > > - alloc_pages_current - which uses default_policy id __GFP_THISNODE is > > used > > > > So we shouldn't even need to care about this possibility and can drop > > the confusing code. Let's keep a WARN_ON_ONCE in place to catch > > potential users and fix them up properly (aka use a different allocation > > function which ignores mempolicy). > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko > > --- > > > > Hi, > > I have noticed this while discussing this code [1]. The code as is > > quite confusing and I think it is worth cleaning up. I decided to be > > conservative and keep at least WARN_ON_ONCE if we have some caller which > > relies on __GFP_THISNODE in a mempolicy context so that we can fix it up. > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57FE0184.6030008@linux.vnet.ibm.com > > > > mm/mempolicy.c | 24 ++++++++---------------- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > > index ad1c96ac313c..33a305397bd4 100644 > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > > @@ -1679,25 +1679,17 @@ static nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy) > > static struct zonelist *policy_zonelist(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, > > int nd) > > { > > - switch (policy->mode) { > > - case MPOL_PREFERRED: > > - if (!(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)) > > - nd = policy->v.preferred_node; > > - break; > > - case MPOL_BIND: > > + if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)) > > + nd = policy->v.preferred_node; > > + else { > > /* > > - * Normally, MPOL_BIND allocations are node-local within the > > - * allowed nodemask. However, if __GFP_THISNODE is set and the > > - * current node isn't part of the mask, we use the zonelist for > > - * the first node in the mask instead. > > + * __GFP_THISNODE shouldn't even be used with the bind policy because > > + * we might easily break the expectation to stay on the requested node > > + * and not break the policy. > > */ > > - if (unlikely(gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && > > - unlikely(!node_isset(nd, policy->v.nodes))) > > - nd = first_node(policy->v.nodes); > > - break; > > - default: > > - BUG(); > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); > > } > > + > > return node_zonelist(nd, gfp); > > } > > > > For both MPOL_PREFERED and MPOL_INTERLEAVE we pick the zone list from > the node other than the current running node. Why don't we do that for > MPOL_BIND ?ie, if the current node is not part of the policy node mask > why are we not picking the first node from the policy node mask for > MPOL_BIND ? I am not sure I understand your question here. There is no __GFP_THISNODE specific code for those policies. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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