Re: [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup
From: Feng Tang
Date: Mon May 31 2021 - 20:55:20 EST
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for reviewing and taking the patches.
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 02:41:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 22:05:53 +0800 Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > We've posted v4 patchset introducing a new "perfer-many" memory policy
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1615952410-36895-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx/ ,
> > for which Michal Hocko gave many comments while pointing out some
> > problems, and we also found some semantics confusion about 'prefer'
> > and 'local' policy, as well as some duplicated code. This patchset
> > tries to address them. Please help to review, thanks!
> >
> > The patchset has been run with some sanity test like 'stress-ng'
> > and 'ltp', and no problem found.
>
> None of the above is suitable for the [0/n] overall description. I
> copied-n-pasted the v1 cover letter from the above link. Please check
> that it is all still correct and up to date. If not, please send along
> replacement text, thanks.
I should make the cover-letter more descriptive. The link above is another
patchset to introduce a new memory policy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, while these
3 patches are preparation work for it, to make it easier for a new policy
to be hooked in.
So how about the following text:
Current memory policy code has some confusing and ambiguous part about
MPOL_LOCAL policy, as it is handled as a faked MPOL_PREFERRED one, and
there are many places having to distinguish them. Also the nodemask
intersection check needs cleanup to be more explicit for OOM use, and
handle MPOL_INTERLEAVE correctly. This patchset cleans up these and
unifies the parameter sanity check for mbind() and set_mempolicy().
Please feel free to modify it, thanks!
- Feng