On 1/30/20 5:33 PM, Li Xinhai wrote: > MPOL_MF_STRICT is used in mbind() for purposes: > (1) MPOL_MF_STRICT is set alone without MPOL_MF_MOVE or MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL, > to check if there is misplaced page and return -EIO; > (2) MPOL_MF_STRICT is set with MPOL_MF_MOVE or MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL, to check > if there is misplaced page which is failed to isolate, or page is > success on isolate but failed to move, and return -EIO. > > For non hugepage mapping, (1) and (2) are implemented as expectation. > For hugepage mapping, (1) is not implemented. And in (2), the part about > failed to isolate and report -EIO is not implemented. > > This patch implements the missed parts for hugepage mapping. Benefits > with it applied: > - User space can apply same code logic to handle mbind() on hugepage and > non hugepage mapping; > - Reliably using MPOL_MF_STRICT alone to check whether there is misplaced > page or not when bind policy on address range, especially for address > range which contains both hugepage and non hugepage mapping. > > Analysis of potential impact on existing users: > - For users who using MPOL_MF_STRICT alone, since mbind() don't report > reliable answer about misplaced page, their existing code have to > utilize other facilities, e.g. numa_maps of proc, to check misplaced > page. After this patch applied, that dedicated checking will still work > without been impacted; > - For users who using MPOL_MF_STRICT with MPOL_MF_MOVE or > MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL, the semantic about some pages could not be moved will > not be changed by this patch, because failed to isolate and failed to > move have same effects to users, so their existing code will not be > impacted. > > In mbind man page, the note about 'MPOL_MF_STRICT is ignored on huge page > mappings' can be removed after this patch is applied. > > Signed-off-by: Li Xinhai <lixinhai.lxh@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-man <linux-man@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hello Naoya, Do you have any thoughts on this? In previous discussions you suggested this approach of removing the special casing for hugetlb pages. The code looks good to me and patch is fine with commmit message modification. Just wanted to get your opinion. -- Mike Kravetz
