From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch v2 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 13:55:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210524055547.GA48704@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <682c92e5-ccb3-4b76-1f56-617f8e6e8f2@google.com>
Hi David,
Thanks for the review!
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 10:15:00PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2021, Feng Tang wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index d79fa29..1964cca 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -2098,7 +2098,7 @@ bool init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodemask_t *mask)
> > *
> > * If tsk's mempolicy is "default" [NULL], return 'true' to indicate default
> > * policy. Otherwise, check for intersection between mask and the policy
> > - * nodemask for 'bind' or 'interleave' policy. For 'preferred' or 'local'
> > + * nodemask for 'bind' policy. For 'interleave', 'preferred' or 'local'
> > * policy, always return true since it may allocate elsewhere on fallback.
> > *
> > * Takes task_lock(tsk) to prevent freeing of its mempolicy.
> > @@ -2111,29 +2111,13 @@ bool mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(struct task_struct *tsk,
> >
> > if (!mask)
> > return ret;
> > +
> > task_lock(tsk);
> > mempolicy = tsk->mempolicy;
> > - if (!mempolicy)
> > - goto out;
> > -
> > - switch (mempolicy->mode) {
> > - case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> > - /*
> > - * MPOL_PREFERRED and MPOL_F_LOCAL are only preferred nodes to
> > - * allocate from, they may fallback to other nodes when oom.
> > - * Thus, it's possible for tsk to have allocated memory from
> > - * nodes in mask.
> > - */
> > - break;
> > - case MPOL_BIND:
> > - case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> > + if (mempolicy && mempolicy->mode == MPOL_BIND)
> > ret = nodes_intersects(mempolicy->v.nodes, *mask);
>
> If MPOL_INTERLEAVE is deemed only a suggestion, the same could be
> considered true of MPOL_BIND intersection as well, no?
IIUC, 'bind' and 'interleave' are different regarding memory allocation. In
alloc_pages_vma(), there are:
nmask = policy_nodemask(gfp, pol);
preferred_nid = policy_node(gfp, pol, node);
page = __alloc_pages(gfp, order, preferred_nid, nmask);
mpol_cond_put(pol);
and in plicy_nodemask(), only 'bind' policy may return its desired nodemask,
while all other returns NULL including 'interleave'. And this 'NULL' enables
the 'interleave' policy can get memory from other nodes than its nodemask.
So when allocating memory, 'interleave' can get memory from all nodes. I did
some experements which also confirm this.
Thanks,
Feng
>
> > - break;
> > - default:
> > - BUG();
> > - }
> > -out:
> > task_unlock(tsk);
> > +
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-24 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 8:30 [RFC Patch v2 0/4] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Feng Tang
2021-05-20 8:30 ` [RFC Patch v2 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom Feng Tang
2021-05-24 5:15 ` David Rientjes
2021-05-24 5:55 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2021-05-20 8:30 ` [RFC Patch v2 2/4] mm/mempolicy: unify the preprocessing for mbind and set_mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-05-24 5:16 ` David Rientjes
2021-05-24 5:59 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-24 8:32 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-20 8:30 ` [RFC Patch v2 3/4] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL_PREFERRED policy Feng Tang
2021-05-20 8:30 ` [RFC Patch v2 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Feng Tang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210524055547.GA48704@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox