On 6/27/19 5:57 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 21:58:17 +0800 zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 2019/5/27 20:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 5/25/19 8:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> (Cc Vlastimil)
>>> Oh dear, 2 years and I forgot all the details about how this works.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2019 15:07:23 +0800 zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We bind an different node to different vma, Unluckily,
>>>>> it will bind different vma to same node by checking the /proc/pid/numa_maps.
>>>>> Commit 213980c0f23b ("mm, mempolicy: simplify rebinding mempolicies when updating cpusets")
>>>>> has introduced the issue. when we change memory policy by seting cpuset.mems,
>>>>> A process will rebind the specified policy more than one times.
>>>>> if the cpuset_mems_allowed is not equal to user specified nodes. hence the issue will trigger.
>>>>> Maybe result in the out of memory which allocating memory from same node.
>>> I have a hard time understanding what the problem is. Could you please
>>> write it as a (pseudo) reproducer? I.e. an example of the process/admin
>>> mempolicy/cpuset actions that have some wrong observed results vs the
>>> correct expected result.
>> Sorry, I havn't an testcase to reproduce the issue. At first, It was disappeared by
>> my colleague to configure the xml to start an vm. To his suprise, The bind mempolicy
>> doesn't work.
>
> So... what do we do with this patch?
>
>> Thanks,
>> zhong jiang
>>>>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>>> @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static void mpol_rebind_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>>>>> else {
>>>>> nodes_remap(tmp, pol->v.nodes,pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed,
>>>>> *nodes);
>>>>> - pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = tmp;
>>>>> + pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = *nodes;
>>> Looks like a mechanical error on my side when removing the code for
>>> step1+step2 rebinding. Before my commit there was
>>>
>>> pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = step ? tmp : *nodes;
>>>
>>> Since 'step' was removed and thus 0, I should have used *nodes indeed.
>>> Thanks for catching that.
>
> Was that an ack?
The fix should be fine, but the description is vague. I'll try to
improve it.
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> if (nodes_empty(tmp))
>>>> hm, I'm not surprised the code broke. What the heck is going on in
>>>> there? It used to have a perfunctory comment, but Vlastimil deleted
>>>> it.
>>> Yeah the comment was specific for the case that was being removed.
>>>
>>>> Could someone please propose a comment for the above code block
>>>> explaining why we're doing what we do?
>>> I'll have to relearn this first...
>>>
>>>
>>
