Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:34:03 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/4] mempolicy: support optional mode flags |
| |
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> These patches look good--well, interesting, anyway. I'm "off on > assignment" this week, so I won't get to review in detail, merge and > test them until next... >
If, by "interesting", you mean that they give the most power to the user in setting up their mempolicies than they have ever had before, then I agree.
> This helper functions introduced by this patch are similar in nature > [but go further] to one I introduced in the reference counting cleanup > RFC [http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=119697614520515&w=4] I posted a > while back. I've been holding these cleanup patches until Andrew starts > accepting this sort of thing again. I have my series based atop Mel > Gorman's [added to cc] "two zonelist" series, as it depends on removing > the custom zonelist from the mempolicy. >
If my helper functions are similar to yours then basing either of our patchsets on top of the other should not be difficult.
> We need to sort out with Andrew, Mel, Paul, ... the order in which these > interdependent changes go in. Given such an order, I'm willing to merge > them all up, test them, and post them [after running checkpatch, of > course]. >
Thanks for volunteering to test the changes. I don't know how many patchsets are currently outstanding that touch mempolicies. So far we have mine and the refcounting cleanup of yours that you mentioned.
I think the best way of dealing with it would be for the author of whatever patchset is merged second to rebase off the current -mm just like I based this entire patchset on your V3 contextualize_policy() patch from a couple days ago.
> One other thing: In the recent mempolicy patch to "silently restrict > nodemask], I mentioned the issue with regards to whether and when to > "contextualize" tmpfs/hugetlbfs policies--if/when we fold > mpol_check_policy() into mpol_new(), as you suggested. Once we can > agree on the desired semantics, I had been thinking that an additional > mode flag could be added to policies obtained from the superblock, and > passed via mpol_shared_policy_init() [which calls mpol_new()] could be > used for this purpose. Your change here seems to lay the foundation for > implementing that. >
My patchset already supports contextualized tmpfs mempolicies with a template for how to specify them (see patch 4 in this series for the documentation update). For example, mpol=interleave:1-3 is the equivalent of MPOL_INTERLEAVE over nodes 1-3 while mpol=interleave=static:1-3 is the equivalent of MPOL_INTERLEAVE | MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES.
David
| |