lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] tmpfs not interleaving properly
(6/19/12 7:21 PM), Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:22:15PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> (6/1/12 10:24 AM), Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:35:53PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> (5/31/12 4:25 PM), Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:09:15 -0400
>>>>> KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>>>>>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> * alloc_page_vma() will drop the shared policy reference
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> - return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, 0);
>>>>>>> + return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, info->node_offset<< PAGE_SHIFT );
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3rd argument of alloc_page_vma() is an address. This is type error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's an unsigned long...
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes, it is conceptually wrong and *looks* weird. I think we can
>>>>> address that by overcoming our peculair aversion to documenting our
>>>>> code, sigh. This?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no.
>>>>
>>>> addr agrument of alloc_pages_vma() have two meanings.
>>>>
>>>> 1) interleave node seed
>>>> 2) look-up key of shmem policy
>>>>
>>>> I think this patch break (2). shmem_get_policy(pol, addr) assume caller honor to
>>>> pass correct address.
>>>
>>> But the pseudo vma we generated in shmem_alloc_page the vm_ops are set to NULL.
>>> So get_vma_policy will return the policy provided by the pseudo vma and not reach
>>> the shmem_get_policy.
>>
>> yes, and it is bug source. we may need to change soon. I guess the right way is
>> to make vm_ops->interleave and interleave_nid uses it if povided.
>
> If we provide vm_ops then won't shmem_get_policy get called?
> That would be an issue since shmem_get_policy assumes vm_file is non NULL.
>
>> btw, I don't think node_random() is good idea. it is random(pid + jiffies + cycle).
>> current->cpuset_mem_spread_rotor is per-thread value. but you now need per-inode
>> interleave offset. maybe, just inode addition is enough. Why do you need randomness?
>
> I don't really need the randomness, the rotor should be good enough.
> The correct way to get that is cpuset_mem_spread_node(), yes?

I think that's good idea too.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-20 06:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site