From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA2C6B004D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.97]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n6GK5c0T010401 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:38 -0700 Received: from pzk2 (pzk2.prod.google.com [10.243.19.130]) by wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n6GK4Z5K026141 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:35 -0700 Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so234210pzk.31 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:31 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic In-Reply-To: <1247679064.4089.26.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: References: <20090715182320.39B5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1247679064.4089.26.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Miao Xie , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter , Paul Menage , Nick Piggin , Yasunori Goto , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm , LKML , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Interestingly, on ia64, the top cpuset mems_allowed gets set to all > possible nodes, while on x86_64, it gets set to on-line nodes [or nodes > with memory]. Maybe this is a to support hot-plug? > numactl --interleave=all simply passes a nodemask with all bits set, so if cpuset_current_mems_allowed includes offline nodes from node_possible_map, then mpol_set_nodemask() doesn't mask them off. Seems like we could handle this strictly in mempolicies without worrying about top_cpuset like in the following? --- diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c --- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes) static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes) { nodemask_t cpuset_context_nmask; + nodemask_t mems_allowed; int ret; /* if mode is MPOL_DEFAULT, pol is NULL. This is right. */ @@ -201,20 +202,21 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes) return 0; VM_BUG_ON(!nodes); + nodes_and(mems_allowed, cpuset_current_mems_allowed, + node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]); if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && nodes_empty(*nodes)) nodes = NULL; /* explicit local allocation */ else { if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES) mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes, - &cpuset_current_mems_allowed); + &mems_allowed); else nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes, - cpuset_current_mems_allowed); + mems_allowed); if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol)) pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes; else - pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = - cpuset_current_mems_allowed; + pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = mems_allowed; } ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol, -- 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