lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpuset,mm: update task's mems_allowed lazily
on 2010-3-11 16:15, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:25:54PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> on 2010-3-9 5:46, David Rientjes wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> Considering the change of task->mems_allowed is not frequent, so in this patch,
>>>> I use two variables as a tag to indicate whether task->mems_allowed need be
>>>> update or not. And before setting the tag, cpuset caches the new mask of every
>>>> task at its task_struct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what exactly is the benefit of 58568d2 from last June that caused this
>>> issue to begin with? It seems like this entire patchset is a revert of
>>> that commit. So why shouldn't we just revert that one commit and then add
>>> the locking and updating necessary for configs where
>>> MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG on top?
>>
>> I worried about the consistency of task->mempolicy with task->mems_allowed for
>> configs where MAX_NUMNODES <= BITS_PER_LONG.
>>
>> The problem that I worried is fowllowing:
>> When the kernel allocator allocates pages for tasks, it will access task->mempolicy
>> first and get the allowed node, then check whether that node is allowed by
>> task->mems_allowed.
>>
>> But, Without this patch, ->mempolicy and ->mems_allowed is not updated at the same
>> time. the kernel allocator may access the inconsistent information of ->mempolicy
>> and ->mems_allowed, sush as the allocator gets the allowed node from old mempolicy,
>> but checks whether that node is allowed by new mems_allowed which does't intersect
>> old mempolicy.
>>
>> So I made this patchset.
>
> I like your focus on keeping the hotpath light, but it is getting a bit
> crazy. I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to teach those places that
> matter to retry on finding an inconsistent nodemask? The only failure
> case to worry about is getting an empty nodemask, isn't it?
>

Ok, I try to make a new patch by using seqlock.

Miao



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-11 11:35    [W:0.093 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site