On 12.4.2017 23:16, Christoph Lameter wrote: > 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()? Looked to me as better wrapping, but probably overengineered, ok. Will change for v2. -- 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>
