lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > > The nodemask for each task is updated to reflect the removal of a node and
> > > it calls mpol_rebind_mm() with the new nodemask.
> > >
> > yes, but _not_ updated at online.
> >
>
> Well, I disagreed that we needed to alter any pre-existing mempolicies for
> MEM_GOING_ONLINE or MEM_ONLINE since it may diverge from the original
> intent of the policy. MPOL_PREFERRED certain shouldn't change,
> MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be unbalanced, and MPOL_BIND could diverge from
> memory isolation or affinity requirements.
>
> I'd be interested to hear any real world use cases for MEM_ONLINE updating
> of mempolicies.
>
Sorry, I was a bit condused. I thought I said about task->mems_allowed.
Not each policy.

Because we dont' update, task->mems_allowed need to be initilaized as
N_POSSIBLE_NODES. At usual thinking, it should be N_HIGH_MEMORY or
N_ONLINE_NODES, as my patch does.

> > What I felt at reading cpuset/mempolicy again is that it's too complex ;)
> > The 1st question is why mems_allowed which can be 1024bytes when max_node=4096
> > is copied per tasks....
>
> The page allocator needs lockless access to mems_allowed.
>
Hmm, ok, I'll take care of that.

Thanks,
-Kame



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-28 02:29    [W:0.178 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site