Re: [PART6 Patch] mempolicy: fix is_valid_nodemask()

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

(2012/11/01 3:21), David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Wen Congyang wrote:
>
>> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> is_valid_nodemask() is introduced by 19770b32. but it does not match
>> its comments, because it does not check the zone which > policy_zone.
>>
>> Also in b377fd, this commits told us, if highest zone is ZONE_MOVABLE,
>> we should also apply memory policies to it. so ZONE_MOVABLE should be valid zone
>> for policies. is_valid_nodemask() need to be changed to match it.
>>
>> Fix: check all zones, even its zoneid > policy_zone.
>> Use nodes_intersects() instead open code to check it.
>>
>
> This changes the semantics of MPOL_BIND to be considerably different than
> what it is today: slab allocations are no longer bound by such a policy
> which isn't consistent with what userspace expects or is specified by
> set_mempolicy() and there's no way, with your patch, to actually specify
> that we don't care about ZONE_MOVABLE and that the slab allocations
> _should_ actually be allocated on movable-only zones.  You have to respect
> cases where people aren't interested in node hotplug and not cause a
> regression.
>

I'm sorry if I misunderstand somehing....
I think people doesn't insterested in node-hotplug will never have MOVABLE_ZONE.
What causes regression ?

Thanks,
-Kame




--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>