[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205082158570.10766@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 21:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, penberg@...nel.org,
cl@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab/mempolicy: always use local policy from interrupt
context v3
On Mon, 7 May 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> > index 7c727a9..7106786 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
> > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ extern struct zonelist *huge_zonelist(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > extern bool init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodemask_t *mask);
> > extern bool mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > const nodemask_t *mask);
> > -extern unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy);
> > +extern unsigned slab_node(void);
> >
> > extern enum zone_type policy_zone;
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index cfb6c86..e05e007 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1586,9 +1586,11 @@ static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > * task can change it's policy. The system default policy requires no
> > * such protection.
> > */
> > -unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > +unsigned slab_node(void)
> > {
> > - if (!policy || policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
> > + struct mempolicy *policy = current->mempolicy;
> > +
> > + if (!in_interrupt() || !policy || policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
> > return numa_node_id();
>
> I think your patch is correct. but I don't like interrupt context
> dereference current task.
> It would be nice if we only see current->mempolicy when !in_interrupt.
>
> But this doesn't mean NAK anyway.
>
> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Sigh, this was acked by Christoph and KOSAKI when the logic is reversed
and does the exact opposite of what's intended?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists