On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 09:55:07AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > > index b1437396c357..dfd097009606 100644 > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > > @@ -2391,7 +2391,7 @@ static unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_array_weighted_interleave(gfp_t gfp, > > unsigned long nr_allocated = 0; > > unsigned long rounds; > > unsigned long node_pages, delta; > > - u8 __rcu *table, *weights, weight; > > + u8 __rcu *table, __rcu *weights, weight; > > The __rcu usage can be checked with `sparse` directly. For example, > > make C=1 mm/mempolicy.o > > More details can be found in > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/sparse.html > > Per my understanding, we shouldn't use "__rcu" here. Please search > "__rcu" in the following document. > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/RCU/checklist.html > Thanks for this, I will sort this out and respond here with changes before v5. > > @@ -2460,17 +2454,10 @@ static unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_array_weighted_interleave(gfp_t gfp, > > node_pages += weight; > > delta -= weight; > > } else if (delta) { > > + /* when delta is deleted, resume from that node */ > ~~~~~~~ > depleted? ack. > > +retry: > > + /* to prevent miscount use tsk->mems_allowed_seq to detect rebind */ > > + cpuset_mems_cookie = read_mems_allowed_begin(); > > if (!current->il_weight || !node_isset(node, policy->nodes)) { > > node = next_node_in(node, policy->nodes); > > node will be changed in the loop. So we need to change the logic here. > Good catch, stupid mistake. ack. > > @@ -2388,10 +2401,17 @@ static unsigned long alloc_pages_bulk_array_weighted_interleave(gfp_t gfp, > > int prev_node; > > int i; > > > > + > > Change by accident? > ack. ~Gregory
