linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if task is already on a correct node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:43:35 -0400
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	lwoodman@...hat.com
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <mkosaki@...hat.com>, kosaki.motohiro@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if
 task is already on a correct node

(3/29/12 2:00 PM), Larry Woodman wrote:
> On 03/22/2012 03:30 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Larry Woodman wrote:
>>
>>>> Application may manage their locality given a range of nodes and each of
>>>> the x .. x+n nodes has their particular purpose.
>>> So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4, 4 to
>>> 5 and 5 to 6
>>> to keep the node ordering the same?
>> Yup. Have a look at do_migrate_pages and the descrition in the comment by
>> there by Paul Jackson.
>>
>>
> Christoph and others what do you think about this???
>
>
> 		for_each_node_mask(s, tmp) {
>+
>+			/* IFF there is an equal number of source and
>+			 * destination nodes, maintain relative node distance
>+			 * even when source and destination nodes overlap.
>+			 * However, when the node weight is unequal, never move
>+			 * memory out of any destination nodes */
>+			if ((nodes_weight(*from_nodes) != nodes_weight(*to_nodes)) &&
>+						(node_isset(s, *to_nodes)))
>+				continue;
>+
> 			d = node_remap(s, *from_nodes, *to_nodes);
> 			if (s == d)
> 				continue;

I'm confused. Could you please explain why you choose nodes_weight()? On my first impression,
it seems almostly unrelated factor.


--
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/