On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:12 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> > mbind(2), on the other hand, just masks off any nodes in the
> > nodemask that are not included in the caller's mems_allowed.
>
> Ok so we temporarily adopt these semantics for set_mempolicy.
>
> > 1) modify contextualize_policy to just remove the non-allowed
> > nodes, as is currently done in-line for mbind(). This
> > guarantees that the resulting mask includes only nodes with
> > memory.
>
> Right make ssense. we already contextualize for cpusets.
Only for mbind(). set_mempolicy(), via contextualize_policy() was just
returning EINVAL for invalid nodes in the mask. I don't know if it
always worked like this, or if we did this in the memoryless nodes
series...
>
> > Index: Linux/mm/mempolicy.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- Linux.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 11:25:17.000000000 -0500
> > +++ Linux/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-02-05 16:03:11.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int mpol_check_policy(int mode, n
> > return -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
> > - return nodes_subset(*nodes, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> Hmmm... That is a pretty drastic change.
the nodes_subset() would always return true, once we mask it with
cpuset_current_mems_allowed(), right? mems_allowed can now only contain
nodes with memory and if cpusets are not configured,
cpuset_current_mems_allowed() just returns node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY].
So, I think this is a no-op.
>
> > @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(int mo
> > switch (mode) {
> > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> > policy->v.nodes = *nodes;
> > - nodes_and(policy->v.nodes, policy->v.nodes,
> > - node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> > if (nodes_weight(policy->v.nodes) == 0) {
> > kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy);
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Do we really need to remove these lines if we change set_mempolicy?
Again, with the change to contextualize_policy(), the nodemask is
guaranteed to only contain nodes with memory, so this was redundant.
>
> > @@ -426,9 +424,13 @@ static int contextualize_policy(int mode
> > if (!nodes)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset.
> > + * This is guaranteed to be a subset of nodes with memory.
> > + */
> > cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
> > - if (!cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed(*nodes))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > + nodes_and(*nodes, *nodes, cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > +
> > return mpol_check_policy(mode, nodes);
> > }
> >
>
> Ditto?
This is the main change in the patch: masking off the invalid nodes
[like sys_mbind() did inline] rather than complaining about them.
However, after I finish testing, I will post an update to this patch
which restores some of the error checks that this change lost.
>
> > @@ -797,7 +799,7 @@ static long do_mbind(unsigned long start
> > if (end == start)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (mpol_check_policy(mode, nmask))
> > + if (contextualize_policy(mode, nmask))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > new = mpol_new(mode, nmask);
> > @@ -915,10 +917,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mbind(unsigned long
> > err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS
> > - /* Restrict the nodes to the allowed nodes in the cpuset */
> > - nodes_and(nodes, nodes, current->mems_allowed);
> > -#endif
>
> Would just removing #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS work? mems_allowed falls back to
> node_possible_map.... Shouldnt that be node_online_map?
I removed this because I changed do_mbind() to call the revised
contextualize_policy() that does exactly this masking. I didn't see any
reason to leave the duplicate code there.
I think that mems_allowed now falls back to nodes with memory. Or it
should in the current code. When Paul adds his new magic, that might
change.
Lee
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
