From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EA0C4707F for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA32613EB for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:23:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8CA32613EB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1CB806B006C; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 1A2C66B0071; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:23:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id F37D26B0072; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:23:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0005.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.5]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34CE6B006C for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511338249980 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:23:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78187076604.28.938443A Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09CC2000996 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:22:51 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: McasQ1+EEht0XUK3SgowT3hoo1AvIwcQcRYeV5YtYckt+FpB91juOuP0xeo1+Q2UTr2mHf/HY8 VQal5LRwmSMg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9996"; a="202736978" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,334,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="202736978" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 May 2021 06:22:56 -0700 IronPort-SDR: kCrSAePdirl8WUUcA3KxO+WRkWMqXM3aqQaAYg3nO21XpAdwopT6A42VX9PV3/L2pT9cP3cjLO ih1+dsndgZoQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,334,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="445012012" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2021 06:22:53 -0700 Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:22:52 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom Message-ID: <20210527132252.GA43221@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1622005302-23027-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1622005302-23027-2-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210527130501.GC7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf11.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.24) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A09CC2000996 X-Stat-Signature: raz3s9ter5zs8a8gm14pj897yu5o3thu X-HE-Tag: 1622121771-634391 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:15:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 27-05-21 21:05:01, Feng Tang wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:30:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Until now this was not a real problem even for OOM context because > > > alloc_page_interleave is always used for the interleaving policy > > > and that one doesn't use any node mask so the code is not really > > > exercised. With your MPOL_PREFERRED this would no longer be the case. > > > > Given the 'interleave' task may have memory allocated from all nodes, > > shouldn't the mempolicy_nodemask_intersects() return true for 'interleave'? > > or I'm still missing something? > > Well, if you go with the renaming then it should be quite obvious that > any policies which are not a hard binding should return true. Ok, will do the rename. thanks for clarifying! - Feng > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs