Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 03:08:24PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> >> For example, can we use something as below?
>> >>
>> >> long set_mempolicy2(int mode, const unsigned long *nodemask, unsigned int *il_weights,
>> >> unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long home_node,
>> >> unsigned long flags);
>> >>
>> >> long mbind2(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
>> >> int mode, const unsigned long *nodemask, unsigned int *il_weights,
>> >> unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long home_node,
>> >> unsigned long flags);
>> >>
>> >
>> > Your definition of mbind2 is impossible.
>> >
>> > Neither of these interfaces solve the extensibility issue. If a new
>> > policy which requires a new format of data arrives, we can look forward
>> > to set_mempolicy3 and mbind3.
>>
>> IIUC, we will not over-engineering too much. It's hard to predict the
>> requirements in the future.
>>
>
> Sure, but having the mempolicy struct at least gives us more flexibility
> than the original interface.
>
>> >> A struct may be defined to hold mempolicy iteself.
>> >>
>> >> struct mpol {
>> >> int mode;
>> >> unsigned int home_node;
>> >> const unsigned long *nodemask;
>> >> unsigned int *il_weights;
>> >> unsigned int maxnode;
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >
>> > addr could be pulled out for get_mempolicy2, so i will do that
>> >
>> > 'addr_node' and 'policy_node' are warts that came from the original
>> > get_mempolicy. Removing them increases the complexity of handling
>> > arguments in the common get_mempolicy code.
>> >
>> > I could probably just drop support for retrieving the addr_node from
>> > get_mempolicy2, since it's already possible with get_mempolicy. So I
>> > will do that.
>>
>> If it's necessary, we can add another struct for get_mempolicy2(). But
>> I don't think that it's necessary to add get_mempolicy2() specific
>> parameters for set_mempolicy2() or mbind2().
>
> After edits, the only parameter that doesn't have parity between
> interfaces is `addr_node` and `policy_node`. This was an unfortunate
> wart on the original get_mempolicy() that multiplexed the output of
> (*mode) based on whether MPOL_F_NODE was set.
>
> Example:
> if (MPOL_F_ADDR | MPOL_F_NODE), then get_mempolicy() would return
> details about a VMA mempolicy + the node of that address in (*mode).
>
> Right now in get_mempolicy2() I fetch this unconditionally instead of
> requiring MPOL_F_NODE. I did not want to multiplexing (*mode) output.
>
> I see two options:
> 1) Get rid of MPOL_F_NODE functionality in get_mempolicy2()
> If a user wants that information, they can still use get_mempolicy()
>
> 2) Keep MPOL_F_NODE and mpol_args->addr_node/policy_node, but don't allow
> any future extensions that create this kind of situation.
3) Add another parameter to get_mempolicy2(), such as "unsigned long
*value" to retrieve addr_node or policy_node. We can extend it to be a
"struct *" in the future if necessary.
> I'm fine with either. I originally aimed for get_mempolicy2() to be
> all of get_mempolicy() features + new data, but that obviously isn't
> required.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
