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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 B764EC47089 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A18D613BF for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:15:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3A18D613BF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A87716B0071; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A70296B0072; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:15:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 90EA86B0073; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:15:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0164.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.164]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516D76B0071 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E030E5851 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78187056738.03.469ECB6 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5F12C6 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:15:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1622121308; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NWh10ATxyrNz9Z6Ew/1MC4tHYel7uPGah1gbH11QuB4=; b=q0RMs+CZTPYRVo07bfTkV9yM8bbBiS+U2g4J8uPB7fbTbQO8Iv5JQppG+PujD1FSH0pSj+ t65H8NMpWPZFULTkg1LAeOqZr8mtGyy6qDyhAVcGpXQiodUQRf8ezZqrAAECkrvvVClqw7 Qahwx3UV1nFRgDP/aPRu+CQvVuOs+EU= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5137AE86; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:15:04 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang 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 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom Message-ID: References: <1622005302-23027-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1622005302-23027-2-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210527130501.GC7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210527130501.GC7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Authentication-Results: imf04.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=q0RMs+CZ; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf04.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2B5F12C6 X-Stat-Signature: m7kkh638u78edugoqo6bkefd6ptfbmrx X-HE-Tag: 1622121305-963804 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 Thu 27-05-21 21:05:01, Feng Tang wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:30:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Until now this was not a real problem even for OOM context because > > alloc_page_interleave is always used for the interleaving policy > > and that one doesn't use any node mask so the code is not really > > exercised. With your MPOL_PREFERRED this would no longer be the case. > > Given the 'interleave' task may have memory allocated from all nodes, > shouldn't the mempolicy_nodemask_intersects() return true for 'interleave'? > or I'm still missing something? Well, if you go with the renaming then it should be quite obvious that any policies which are not a hard binding should return true. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs