On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:17 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>
> > 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;
> > }
> >
> > /* Generate a custom zonelist for the BIND policy. */
>
> This change will be necessary when the nodemask passed from the syscall is
> saved in the struct mempolicy as the intent of the application as well.
>
> > @@ -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);
> > @@ -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);
> > }
> >
>
> I would defer the intersection until later because contextualize_policy()
> is called before mpol_new() so we have no struct mempolicy to save the
> intent in. It doesn't matter for the sake of this change, I know, but you
> could move this intersection to mpol_new() and give us an opportunity to
> store the user's nodemask in the mempolicy with a one-line change and get
> the same desired result.
Hi, David:
I wanted to avoid a major restructuring of the code for this patch.
However, now that both do_mbind() and do_set_mempolicy() both call
contextualize_policy() [which calls mpol_check_policy()] immediately
before calling mpol_new(), I agree we can push this "contextualization"
down there. I would like to defer this to another patch--perhaps as
part of Paul's rework of mempolicy and cpusets.
Note that there is another caller of mpol_new() --
mpol_shared_policy_init(). We'll need to decide whether that call needs
to be contextualized, as it constructs a policy from the tmpfs or
hugetlbfs superblock, as specified on the mount command [or kernel
command line?]. As this is a privileged operation, one could argue that
it should be exempt from cpuset constraints.
>
> You can now remove cpuset_nodes_subset_current_mems_allowed() from
> linux/cpuset.h.
>
> > @@ -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
> > return do_mbind(start, len, mode, &nodes, flags);
> > }
> >
>
> Looks good, thanks for doing this.
As I mentioned to Christoph, I'll post a new version that I think
handles the error conditions better.
Later,
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/
