From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx119.postini.com [74.125.245.119]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3C1B6B004D for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 02:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5283EE0C1 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:05:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42DF45DE5F for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:05:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A27545DE5E for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:05:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA951DB8054 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:05:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com (m1000.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.136]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E581DB804A for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:05:33 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <50936288.5090008@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:04:56 +0900 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PART6 Patch] mempolicy: fix is_valid_nodemask() References: <1351675458-11859-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1351675458-11859-2-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Wen Congyang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Rob Landley , Andrew Morton , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , Lai Jiangshan , Jiang Liu , KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Mel Gorman , Yinghai Lu , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" (2012/11/01 3:21), David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Wen Congyang wrote: > >> From: Lai Jiangshan >> >> 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: email@kvack.org