[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51383699.7060805@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:41:29 +0800
From: Will Huck <will.huckk@...il.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tmpfs: fix mempolicy object leaks
Hi Hugh,
On 03/06/2013 03:40 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
>> Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
>> that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
>> mm subsystem just have little.
> NUMA mempolicy is mostly handled in mm/mempolicy.c, which services the
> mbind, migrate_pages, set_mempolicy, get_mempolicy system calls: which
> govern how process memory is distributed across NUMA nodes.
>
> mm/shmem.c is affected because it was also found useful to specify
> mempolicy on the shared memory objects which may back process memory:
> that includes SysV SHM and POSIX shared memory and tmpfs. mm/hugetlb.c
> contains some mempolicy handling for hugetlbfs; fs/ramfs is kept minimal,
> so nothing in there.
>
> Those are the memory-based filesystems, where NUMA mempolicy is most
> natural. The regular filesystems could support shared mempolicy too,
> but that would raise more awkward design questions.
I found that if mbind several processes to one node and almost exhaust
memory, processes will just stuck and no processes make progress or be
killed. Is it normal?
>
> Hugh
--
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