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=-5.3 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 270BEC47082 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9A36136E for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:29:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BC9A36136E 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 066688D0001; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 03D1C6B007B; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:29:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E46CB8D0001; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:29:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0119.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.119]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B271B6B0078 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F0C81D6 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:29:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78200852268.27.CDE9707 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5DAA000254 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:29:20 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: MNmjDeSZy8JMmpzb7sJbgIndni+FMugGjGLyP/vqzY4cICNgwKAUJQxUy7PpsI25WxJKaMWajS lSiaFg6WkgfQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10000"; a="200302386" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,236,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="200302386" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 May 2021 01:29:26 -0700 IronPort-SDR: J3u/Qqen6sxUPjq8sd43cC547nnxbLlmxikRCPESXSwM1P9yqZP/hWDk59rn+k8uRwZ+AMnF8N btzp3cVx9oBQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,236,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="446528877" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2021 01:29:21 -0700 Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 16:29:22 +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 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Message-ID: <20210531082922.GD56979@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1622005302-23027-5-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210527121041.GA7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210527133436.GD7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210528043954.GA32292@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210531073252.GC56979@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: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.93) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com X-Stat-Signature: m8ypqwo653a5o47pyp511fssu8iptrpu X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1D5DAA000254 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-HE-Tag: 1622449760-67159 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 Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:22:51AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 31-05-21 15:32:52, Feng Tang wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 09:00:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > I can see you have posted a newer version which I haven't seen yet but > > > this is really better to get resolved before building up more on top. > > > And let me be explicit. I do believe that rebinding preferred policy is > > > just bogus and it should be dropped altogether on the ground that a > > > preference is a mere hint from userspace where to start the allocation. > > > > Yes, the current mpol_rebind_preferred()'s logic is confusing. Let me > > try to understand it correctly, are you suggesting to do nothing for > > 'prefer's rebinding regarding MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES and MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES, > > while just setting 'pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed' to the new nodemask? > > yes this is exactly what I've had in mind. Thanks for confirming. Will spin another version. - Feng > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs