[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907161257190.31844@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists