On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:31:32PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index c2ccec0..c1a2573 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -120,6 +120,14 @@ static struct mempolicy default_policy = {
> >
> > static struct mempolicy preferred_node_policy[MAX_NUMNODES];
> >
> > +/* Returns true if the policy is the default policy */
> > +static bool mpol_is_default(struct mempolicy *pol)
> > +{
> > + return !pol ||
> > + pol == &default_policy ||
> > + pol == &preferred_node_policy[numa_node_id()];
> > +}
> > +
> > static struct mempolicy *get_task_policy(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > struct mempolicy *pol = p->mempolicy;
>
> I was trying to avoid doing this because numa_node_id() of process A
> reading numa_maps for process B has nothing to do with the policy of the
> process A and I thought MPOL_F_MORON's purpose was exactly for what it is
> used for today. It works today since you initialize preferred_node_policy
> for all nodes, but could this ever change to only be valid for N_MEMORY
> node states, for example?
>
You're right about the numa_node_id() usage, I should have called
task_node(p) to read the node it's currently running but that is potentially
obscure for different reasons.
> I'm not sure what the harm in updating mpol_to_str() would be if
> MPOL_F_MORON is to change in the future?
It just has to be caught correctly and handled and it's a little non-obvious
but ok if I see a patch that modifies how MPOL_F_MORON is used in the
future I should remember to check for this. I withdraw my objection for
your patch so
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>