[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e4ed04c-8bec-029a-cedc-4573df8fb0aa@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:44:27 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, mempolicy: clean up __GFP_THISNODE confusion in
policy_zonelist
On 10/13/2016 02:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> __GFP_THISNODE is documented to enforce the allocation to be satisified
> from the requested node with no fallbacks or placement policy
> enforcements. policy_zonelist seemingly breaks this semantic if the
> current policy is MPOL_MBIND and instead of taking the node it will
> fallback to the first node in the mask if the requested one is not in
> the mask. This is confusing to say the least because it fact we
> shouldn't ever go that path. First tasks shouldn't be scheduled on CPUs
> with nodes outside of their mempolicy binding. And secondly
> policy_zonelist is called only from 3 places:
> - huge_zonelist - never should do __GFP_THISNODE when going this path
> - alloc_pages_vma - which shouldn't depend on __GFP_THISNODE either
> - alloc_pages_current - which uses default_policy id __GFP_THISNODE is
^ if
> used
>
> So we shouldn't even need to care about this possibility and can drop
> the confusing code. Let's keep a WARN_ON_ONCE in place to catch
> potential users and fix them up properly (aka use a different allocation
> function which ignores mempolicy).
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Looks good, and a BUG_ON() removed as a bonus :)
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
>
> Hi,
> I have noticed this while discussing this code [1]. The code as is
> quite confusing and I think it is worth cleaning up. I decided to be
> conservative and keep at least WARN_ON_ONCE if we have some caller which
> relies on __GFP_THISNODE in a mempolicy context so that we can fix it up.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57FE0184.6030008@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>
> mm/mempolicy.c | 24 ++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index ad1c96ac313c..33a305397bd4 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1679,25 +1679,17 @@ static nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy)
> static struct zonelist *policy_zonelist(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy,
> int nd)
> {
> - switch (policy->mode) {
> - case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> - if (!(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
> - nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
> - break;
> - case MPOL_BIND:
> + if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
> + nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
> + else {
> /*
> - * Normally, MPOL_BIND allocations are node-local within the
> - * allowed nodemask. However, if __GFP_THISNODE is set and the
> - * current node isn't part of the mask, we use the zonelist for
> - * the first node in the mask instead.
> + * __GFP_THISNODE shouldn't even be used with the bind policy because
> + * we might easily break the expectation to stay on the requested node
> + * and not break the policy.
> */
> - if (unlikely(gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) &&
> - unlikely(!node_isset(nd, policy->v.nodes)))
> - nd = first_node(policy->v.nodes);
> - break;
> - default:
> - BUG();
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE));
> }
> +
> return node_zonelist(nd, gfp);
> }
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists