[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120619232102.GA5698@gulag1.americas.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:21:02 -0500
From: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
Cc: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
npiggin@...il.com, cl@...ux.com, lee.schermerhorn@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tmpfs not interleaving properly
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:22:15PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (6/1/12 10:24 AM), Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:35:53PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> (5/31/12 4:25 PM), Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:09:15 -0400
>>>> KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * alloc_page_vma() will drop the shared policy reference
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> - return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, 0);
>>>>>> + return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, info->node_offset<< PAGE_SHIFT );
>>>>>
>>>>> 3rd argument of alloc_page_vma() is an address. This is type error.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's an unsigned long...
>>>>
>>>> But yes, it is conceptually wrong and *looks* weird. I think we can
>>>> address that by overcoming our peculair aversion to documenting our
>>>> code, sigh. This?
>>>
>>> Sorry, no.
>>>
>>> addr agrument of alloc_pages_vma() have two meanings.
>>>
>>> 1) interleave node seed
>>> 2) look-up key of shmem policy
>>>
>>> I think this patch break (2). shmem_get_policy(pol, addr) assume caller honor to
>>> pass correct address.
>>
>> But the pseudo vma we generated in shmem_alloc_page the vm_ops are set to NULL.
>> So get_vma_policy will return the policy provided by the pseudo vma and not reach
>> the shmem_get_policy.
>
> yes, and it is bug source. we may need to change soon. I guess the right way is
> to make vm_ops->interleave and interleave_nid uses it if povided.
>
If we provide vm_ops then won't shmem_get_policy get called?
That would be an issue since shmem_get_policy assumes vm_file is non NULL.
> btw, I don't think node_random() is good idea. it is random(pid + jiffies + cycle).
> current->cpuset_mem_spread_rotor is per-thread value. but you now need per-inode
> interleave offset. maybe, just inode addition is enough. Why do you need randomness?
>
I don't really need the randomness, the rotor should be good enough.
The correct way to get that is cpuset_mem_spread_node(), yes?
Also apologies for such a delay in my response.
--
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