On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> Well, interleave_nodes() will then potentially return a node outside of
> >> the allowed memory policy when its called for the first time after
> >> mpol_rebind_.. . But thenn it will find the next node within the
> >> nodemask and work correctly for the next invocations.
> >
> > Hmm, you're right. But that could be easily fixed if il_next became il_prev, so
> > we would return the result of next_node_in(il_prev) and also store it as the new
> > il_prev, right? I somehow assumed it already worked that way.
Yup that makes sense and I thought about that when I saw the problem too.
> @@ -863,6 +856,18 @@ static int lookup_node(unsigned long addr)
> return err;
> }
>
> +/* Do dynamic interleaving for a process */
> +static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy, bool update_prev)
Why do you need an additional flag? Would it not be better to always
update and switch the update_prev=false case to simply use
next_node_in()?
> +{
> + unsigned next;
> + struct task_struct *me = current;
> +
> + next = next_node_in(me->il_prev, policy->v.nodes);
> + if (next < MAX_NUMNODES && update_prev)
> + me->il_prev = next;
> + return next;
> +}
> +
> /* Retrieve NUMA policy */
> static long do_get_mempolicy(int *policy, nodemask_t *nmask,
> unsigned long addr, unsigned long flags)
> @@ -916,7 +921,7 @@ static long do_get_mempolicy(int *policy, nodemask_t *nmask,
> *policy = err;
> } else if (pol == current->mempolicy &&
> pol->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) {
> - *policy = current->il_next;
> + *policy = interleave_nodes(current->mempolicy, false);
Here
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
