[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907271710590.27881@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
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>, y-goto@...fujitsu.com,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > The nodemask for each task is updated to reflect the removal of a node and
> > it calls mpol_rebind_mm() with the new nodemask.
> >
> yes, but _not_ updated at online.
>
Well, I disagreed that we needed to alter any pre-existing mempolicies for
MEM_GOING_ONLINE or MEM_ONLINE since it may diverge from the original
intent of the policy. MPOL_PREFERRED certain shouldn't change,
MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be unbalanced, and MPOL_BIND could diverge from
memory isolation or affinity requirements.
I'd be interested to hear any real world use cases for MEM_ONLINE updating
of mempolicies.
> What I felt at reading cpuset/mempolicy again is that it's too complex ;)
> The 1st question is why mems_allowed which can be 1024bytes when max_node=4096
> is copied per tasks....
The page allocator needs lockless access to mems_allowed.
--
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