linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YLSc2zzr1g+CTiAY@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 10:22:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit

On Mon 31-05-21 15:32:52, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 09:00:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I can see you have posted a newer version which I haven't seen yet but
> > this is really better to get resolved before building up more on top.
> > And let me be explicit. I do believe that rebinding preferred policy is
> > just bogus and it should be dropped altogether on the ground that a 
> > preference is a mere hint from userspace where to start the allocation. 
> 
> Yes, the current mpol_rebind_preferred()'s logic is confusing. Let me
> try to understand it correctly, are you suggesting to do nothing for
> 'prefer's rebinding regarding MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES and MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES,
> while just setting 'pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed' to the new nodemask?

yes this is exactly what I've had in mind.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs