On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > For normal interleave, this isn't an issue because it always proceeds to > > the next node. The same is not true of weighted interleave, which may > > have a hanging weight in task->il_weight. > > So, I added a check as follows, > > node_isset(current->il_prev, policy->nodes) > > If prev node is removed from nodemask, allocation will proceed to the > next node. Otherwise, it's safe to use current->il_weight. > Funny enough I have this on one of my branches and dropped it, but after digging through everything - this should be sufficient. I'll just add il_weight next to il_prev and have a new set of patches out today. Code is already there, just needs one last cleanup pass. ~Gregory
