From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 780996B00CA for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:33:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B98C6DE.3060602@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:33:02 +0800 From: Miao Xie Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpuset,mm: update task's mems_allowed lazily References: <4B94CD2D.8070401@cn.fujitsu.com> <4B95F802.9020308@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100311081548.GJ5812@laptop> In-Reply-To: <20100311081548.GJ5812@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: David Rientjes , Lee Schermerhorn , Paul Menage , Linux-Kernel , Linux-MM List-ID: on 2010-3-11 16:15, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:25:54PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> on 2010-3-9 5:46, David Rientjes wrote: >> [snip] >>>> Considering the change of task->mems_allowed is not frequent, so in this patch, >>>> I use two variables as a tag to indicate whether task->mems_allowed need be >>>> update or not. And before setting the tag, cpuset caches the new mask of every >>>> task at its task_struct. >>>> >>> >>> So what exactly is the benefit of 58568d2 from last June that caused this >>> issue to begin with? It seems like this entire patchset is a revert of >>> that commit. So why shouldn't we just revert that one commit and then add >>> the locking and updating necessary for configs where >>> MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG on top? >> >> I worried about the consistency of task->mempolicy with task->mems_allowed for >> configs where MAX_NUMNODES <= BITS_PER_LONG. >> >> The problem that I worried is fowllowing: >> When the kernel allocator allocates pages for tasks, it will access task->mempolicy >> first and get the allowed node, then check whether that node is allowed by >> task->mems_allowed. >> >> But, Without this patch, ->mempolicy and ->mems_allowed is not updated at the same >> time. the kernel allocator may access the inconsistent information of ->mempolicy >> and ->mems_allowed, sush as the allocator gets the allowed node from old mempolicy, >> but checks whether that node is allowed by new mems_allowed which does't intersect >> old mempolicy. >> >> So I made this patchset. > > I like your focus on keeping the hotpath light, but it is getting a bit > crazy. I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to teach those places that > matter to retry on finding an inconsistent nodemask? The only failure > case to worry about is getting an empty nodemask, isn't it? > Ok, I try to make a new patch by using seqlock. Miao -- 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