From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [v4 PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL_PREFERRED policy
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:41:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YLiHsqvQy9fNbP5D@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1622560492-1294-3-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
On Tue 01-06-21 23:14:51, Feng Tang wrote:
> MPOL_LOCAL policy has been setup as a real policy, but it is still handled
> like a faked POL_PREFERRED policy with one internal MPOL_F_LOCAL flag bit
> set, and there are many places having to judge the real 'prefer' or the
> 'local' policy, which are quite confusing.
>
> In current code, there are 4 cases that MPOL_LOCAL are used:
> 1. user specifies 'local' policy
> 2. user specifies 'prefer' policy, but with empty nodemask
> 3. system 'default' policy is used
> 4. 'prefer' policy + valid 'preferred' node with MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
> flag set, and when it is 'rebind' to a nodemask which doesn't
> contains the 'preferred' node, it will perform as 'local' policy
>
> So make 'local' a real policy instead of a fake 'prefer' one, and kill
> MPOL_F_LOCAL bit, which can greatly reduce the confusion for code reading.
>
> For case 4, the logic of mpol_rebind_preferred() is confusing, as Michal
> Hocko pointed out:
>
> : I do believe that rebinding preferred policy is just bogus and it should
> : be dropped altogether on the ground that a preference is a mere hint from
> : userspace where to start the allocation. Unless I am missing something
> : cpusets will be always authoritative for the final placement. The
> : preferred node just acts as a starting point and it should be really
> : preserved when cpusets changes. Otherwise we have a very subtle behavior
> : corner cases.
>
> So dump all the tricky transformation between 'prefer' and 'local',
> and just record the new nodemask of rebinding.
>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
But this having another pair of eyes would be definitely helpful.
Still one nit though
> @@ -234,30 +229,27 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol,
> /* if mode is MPOL_DEFAULT, pol is NULL. This is right. */
> if (pol == NULL)
> return 0;
> +
> + if (pol->mode == MPOL_LOCAL)
> + return 0;
> +
This would benefit from a comment. The one above pol NULL check is just
desperately unhelpful. I would go with the following
/*
* Default (pol==NULL) resp. local memory policies are not a
* subject of any remapping. They also do not need any special
* constructor.
*/
if (!pol || pol->mode == MPOL_LOCAL)
return 0;
> /* Check N_MEMORY */
> nodes_and(nsc->mask1,
> cpuset_current_mems_allowed, node_states[N_MEMORY]);
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-03 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-01 15:14 [v4 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Feng Tang
2021-06-01 15:14 ` [v4 PATCH 1/3] mm/mempolicy: cleanup nodemask intersection check for oom Feng Tang
2021-06-01 15:14 ` [v4 PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL_PREFERRED policy Feng Tang
2021-06-03 7:41 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-06-03 8:18 ` Feng Tang
2021-06-07 7:48 ` [mm/mempolicy] 7463fff037: ltp.mbind01.fail kernel test robot
2021-06-07 8:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-01 15:14 ` [v4 PATCH 3/3] mm/mempolicy: unify the parameter sanity check for mbind and set_mempolicy Feng Tang
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=YLiHsqvQy9fNbP5D@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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