[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95170ea5-5b62-9168-fcd9-93b43330a1b4@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:26:05 -0800
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
cl@...ux.com, mhocko@...e.com, cai@....pw,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already
on the target nodes
On 12/6/19 12:25 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/5/19 5:34 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Since commit e78bbfa82624 ("mm: stop returning -ENOENT
>> from sys_move_pages() if nothing got migrated"), move_pages doesn't
>> return -ENOENT anymore if the pages are already on the target nodes, but
>> this change is never reflected in manpage.
>>
>> Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
>> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
>> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> man2/move_pages.2 | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2
>> index 2d96468..2a2f3cd 100644
>> --- a/man2/move_pages.2
>> +++ b/man2/move_pages.2
>> @@ -192,9 +192,8 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate
>> pages of a kernel thread.
>> One of the target nodes is not online.
>> .TP
>> .B ENOENT
>> -No pages were found that require moving.
>> -All pages are either already
>> -on the target node, not present, had an invalid address or could not be
>> +No pages were found.
>> +All pages are either not present, had an invalid address or could
>> not be
>> moved because they were mapped by multiple processes.
>> .TP
>> .B EPERM
>>
>
> whoa, hold on. If I'm reading through the various error paths
> correctly, then this
> code is *never* going to return ENOENT for the whole function. It can
> fill in that
> value per-page, in the status array, but that's all. Did I get that
> right?
Nice catch. Yes, you are right.
>
> If so, we need to redo this part of the man page.
Yes.
>
>
> thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists