linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
To: <akpm@linuxfoundation.org>, <david@kernel.org>, <ziy@nvidia.com>,
	<matthew.brost@intel.com>, <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>,
	<rakie.kim@sk.com>, <byungchul@sk.com>, <gourry@gourry.net>,
	<ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>, <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	<mgorman@suse.de>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm/mempolicy: fix mpol_rebind_nodemask() for MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 11:04:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251222030456.2246728-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com> (raw)

commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on fault among multiple
bound nodes") adds new flag MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING to enable NUMA balancing
for MPOL_BIND memory policy.

when the cpuset of tasks changes, the mempolicy of the task is rebound
by mpol_rebind_nodemask(). The intended rebinding behavior of
MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING was the same as when neither MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES nor
MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flags are set. However, this commit breaks it.

struct mempolicy has a union member as bellow:

   union {
       nodemask_t cpuset_mems_allowed; /* relative to these nodes */
       nodemask_t user_nodemask;       /* nodemask passed by user */
   } w;

w.cpuset_mems_allowed and w.user_nodemask are both nodemask type and their
difference is only what type of nodemask is stored. mpol_set_nodemask()
initializes the union like below:

   static int mpol_set_nodemask(...)
   {
        if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
                pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
        else
                pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
   }

mpol_store_user_nodemask() returns true for MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
incorrectly and the union stores user-passed nodemask. Consequently,
mpol_rebind_nodemask() ends up rebinding based on the user-passed nodemask
rather than the cpuset_mems_allowed nodemask as intended.

To fix this, only store the user nodemask if MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES or
MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES is present.

Fixes: bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes")
Reviewed-by: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
---
Change since v1:
 * update changelog and comments.
 * collect RB from Gregory.

 include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h | 3 +++
 mm/mempolicy.c                 | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
index 8fbbe613611a..6c962d866e86 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ enum {
 #define MPOL_MODE_FLAGS							\
 	(MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES | MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES | MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING)
 
+/* Whether the nodemask is specified by users */
+#define MPOL_USER_NODEMASK_FLAGS (MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES | MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
+
 /* Flags for get_mempolicy */
 #define MPOL_F_NODE	(1<<0)	/* return next IL mode instead of node mask */
 #define MPOL_F_ADDR	(1<<1)	/* look up vma using address */
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 68a98ba57882..76da50425712 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations {
 
 static inline int mpol_store_user_nodemask(const struct mempolicy *pol)
 {
-	return pol->flags & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
+	return pol->flags & MPOL_USER_NODEMASK_FLAGS;
 }
 
 static void mpol_relative_nodemask(nodemask_t *ret, const nodemask_t *orig,
-- 
2.43.0



             reply	other threads:[~2025-12-22  3:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-22  3:04 Jinjiang Tu [this message]
2025-12-22  9:51 ` Huang, Ying
2025-12-22 14:25   ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-12-23  0:50     ` Huang, Ying

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=20251222030456.2246728-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com \
    --to=tujinjiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=byungchul@sk.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.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