On 7/23/19 7:35 AM, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On 7/22/19 6:02 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:25:09 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> since there may be pages off LRU temporarily. We should migrate other >>>> pages if MPOL_MF_MOVE* is specified. Set has_unmovable flag if some >>>> paged could not be not moved, then return -EIO for mbind() eventually. >>>> >>>> With this change the above test would return -EIO as expected. >>>> >>>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> >> Thanks. >> >> I'm a bit surprised that this doesn't have a cc:stable. Did we >> consider that? > > The VM_BUG just happens on 4.9, and it is enabled only by CONFIG_VM. For > post-4.9 kernel, this fixes the semantics of mbind which should be not a > regression IMHO. 4.9 is a LTS kernel, so perhaps worth trying? >> >> Also, is this patch dependent upon "mm: mempolicy: make the behavior >> consistent when MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were specified"? >> Doesn't look that way.. > > No, it depends on patch #1. > >> >> Also, I have a note that you had concerns with "mm: mempolicy: make the >> behavior consistent when MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were >> specified". What is the status now? > > Vlastimil had given his Reviewed-by. Yes, the concerns were resolved.
