[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c8d21c1e-1bcb-e995-9b58-01ea3320085e@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 09:45:40 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Subject: Re: mbind MPOL_INTERLEAVE existing pages
On 5/1/23 20:58, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I received a question from a customer that was trying to move pages via
> the mbind system call. In this specific case, the system had two nodes
> and all pages in the range were already present on node 0. They then
> called mbind with mode MPOL_INTERLEAVE and the MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL flag. Their
> expectation was that half the pages in the range would be moved to node 1
> in an interleaved pattern.
>
> In the above situation, no pages actually get moved. This is because mbind
> creates a list of pages to be moved via:
>
> ret = queue_pages_range(mm, start, end, nmask,
> flags | MPOL_MF_INVERT, &pagelist);
>
> No page will be added to the list as queue_folio_required is called for each
> page to determine if it resides within the set of nodes. And, all page are
> within the set.
>
> I have reread the mbind man page several times and agree that one might
> expect MPOL_INTERLEAVE with MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL to move pages and create an
> interleaved pattern. My question is should we:
> - Change mbind so that pages are moved to an interleaved pattern?
I guess it could be worth trying, if there's a use case. And hope nobody
else is depending on the current behavior and will complain afterwards :)
> - Update the documentation to be more explicit?
>
> I can do either, but just wanted to get opinions before starting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists