[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2/3] {PREFIX:-x86_64}: Convert mempolicies to nodemask_t
Andi wrote:
> Convert mempolicies to nodemask_t


Minor comments as I read the patch.

1) Can the include of 'linux/bitmap.h' be removed from the file

2) /* AK: shouldn't this error out instead? */
Andi add the above comment on a cpuset_restrict_to_mems_allowed()

The question is this - if an app tries to use mbind/set_mempolicy
to ask for some memory nodes, some of which are allowed in
their current cpuset, and some of which are outside that cpuset,
should the kernel silently trim their request to those allowed
in the cpuset, or should the kernel complain because some of the
requested memory nodes are not allowed.

My guess is that Andi is right (kernel should error), and it was
my unrelenting drive to trim to an absolute minimum the size of
the cpuset impact on the mempolicy code that led me to the other
answer (trim silently).

I suppose I should conjure up a patch that changes this, to what
Andi suspects is the proper way.

3) Either this current patch of Andi's, or the patch considered for (2)
above should also convert whatever kernel/cpuset.c call the mempolicy.c
code is making from bitmaps to nodemasks, rather than convert to bitmaps
across the boundary:


4) Should the following line:

+ PDprintk("setting mode %d nodes[0] %lx\n", mode, nodes_addr(nodes)[0]);

instead be:

+ PDprintk("setting mode %d nodes[0] %lx\n", mode, nodes_addr(*nodes)[0]);

5) If anyone ever (even for debugging) adds something to the nodemask_t structure,
then the following line in sys_get_mempolicy() will die a horrible death:

+ err = copy_nodes_to_user(nmask, maxnode, &nodes, sizeof(nodes));

In this, 'nodes' is of type nodemask_t. The address of the bits in a nodemask_t
is properly obtained using the nodes_addr() macro, not '&nodes', and the number of
bytes in those bits is 'BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES) * sizeof(unsigned long)', not

6) How come I don't see changes for the 'compat_sys_get_mempolicy()' routine?

7) Do -not- add one for the next node in interleave_nodes():

+ next = next_node(1+nid, policy->v.nodes);

The next_node() macro, unlike the find_next_bit() macro, already adds one.
Off hand, that seems like an annoying inconsistency. But since I may well
be the person that introduced it, I'd rather not think about it too much ;).

8) Ditto (7), in offset_il_node():

+ nid = next_node(nid+1, pol->v.nodes);

Otherwise, looks good.

I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-12 11:28    [W:0.042 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site