On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:00:55PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:42:42PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists.
> >> > > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have.
> >> > >
> >> > > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints?
> >> >
> >> > Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy"
> >> > Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup.
> >>
> >> Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory
> >> policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues.
> >
> > Migration on the page level is needed for the memory error handling.
> >
> > Updates: you mean not allowing to set the policy when there are already
> > multiple mappers? I could see that causing some unexpected behaviour. Presumably
> > a standard database will only set it at the beginning, but I don't know
> > if that would work for all users.
>
> We don't need to kill migration core. We only need to kill that mbind(2) updates
> vma->policy of shmem.
[...]
So should I (and Greg) drop 'mm: mempolicy: Let vma_merge and
vma_split handle vma->vm_policy linkages' from the pending stable
releases? Or is that OK as an interim fix until these changes go
into mainline?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>