Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 2/4] mempolicy: support optional mode flags | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:31:07 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:34 -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > 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.
Hi David: to clarify: I added the "interesting" because I didn't want the "look good" to be interpreted as an informed judgement. I hadn't time to review in detail. I do have some comments, which I'll send in response to the original patch messages [or any later posting thereof, should that occur before I have time].
> > > 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.
Hmmm, so 'static' means "don't contexutalize"--i.e., don't mask off disallowed or memoryless nodes? That means we'll need to skip them in the interleave node calculation in the allocation path. Perhaps your patch already addresses this, but I haven't had time to look.
Later, Lee
| |