On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If the range passed to mbind() is not allocated on nodes set in the
> nodemask, it migrates the pages to respect the constraint.
>
> The final formal of migrate_pages() is a mode of type enum migrate_mode,
> not a boolean. do_mbind() is currently passing "true" which is the
> equivalent of MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT. This should instead be MIGRATE_SYNC
> for synchronous page migration.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1177,7 +1177,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
> if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
> nr_failed = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_vma_page,
> (unsigned long)vma,
> - false, true);
> + false, MIGRATE_SYNC);
> if (nr_failed)
> putback_lru_pages(&pagelist);
> }
I can't really do anything with this patch - it's a bug added by
Peter's "mm/mpol: Simplify do_mbind()" and added to linux-next via one
of Ingo's trees.
And I can't cleanly take the patch over as it's all bound up with the
other changes for sched/numa balancing.
Is that patchset actually going anywhere in the short term in its
present form? If not, methinks it would be better to pull it out of
-next for now.
--
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>