lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] tmpfs not interleaving properly
(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.

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?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-01 20:01    [W:0.054 / U:14.684 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site