On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

quoted text
> > > If we just want to preserve existing behavior, we can define an
> > > additional mode flag that we set in the sbinfo policy in
> > > shmem_parse_mpol() and test in mpol_new().  If we want to be able to
> > > specify existing or new behavior, we can use the same flag, but set it
> > > or not based on an additional qualifier specified via the mount option.
> > > 
> > 
> > Shmem areas between cpusets with disjoint mems_allowed seems like an error 
> > in userspace to me and I would prefer that mpol_new() reject it outright.
> 
> I don't think so, and I'd like to explain why.  Perhaps this is too big
> a topic to cover in the context of this patch response.  I think I'll
> start another thread.  Suffice it to say here that cpusets and
> mempolicies don't constrain, in anyway, the ability of tasks in a cpuset
> to attach to shmem segments created by tasks in other, perhaps disjoint,
> cpusets.  The cpusets and mempolicies DO constrain page allocations,
> however.  This can result in OOM faults for tasks in cpusets whose
> mems_allowed contains no overlap with a shared policy installed by the
> creating task.  This can be avoided if the task that creates the shmem
> segment faults in all of the pages and SHM_LOCKs them down.  Whether
> this is sufficient for all applications is subject of the other
> discussion.  In any case, I think we need to point this out in mempolicy
> and cpuset man pages.
> 

I don't think we're likely to see examples of actual code written to do 
this being posted to refute my comment.

I think what you said above is right and that it should be allowed.  
You're advocating for allowing task A to attach to shmem segments created 
by task B while task A has its own mempolicy that restricts its own 
allocations but still being able to access the shmem segments of task B, 
providing that task A will not fault them back in itself.

You're right, that's not a scenario that I was hoping to address to 
MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES.

quoted text
> > Since we're allowed to remap the node to a different node than the user 
> > specified with either syscall, the current behavior is that "one node is 
> > as good as another."  In other words, we're trying to accomodate the mode 
> > first by setting pol->v.preferred_node to some accessible node and only 
> > setting that to the user-supplied node if it is available.
> > 
> > If the node isn't available and the user specifically asked that it is not 
> > remapped (with MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES), then I felt local allocation was best 
> > compared to remapping to a node that may be unrelated to the VMA or task.  
> > This preserves a sense of the current behavior that "one node is as good 
> > as another," but the user specifically asked for no remap.
> 
> Yeah.  I went back and read the update to the mempolicy doc where you
> make it clear that this is the semantic of 'STATIC_NODES.  You also
> mentioned it in the patch description, but I didn't "get it".  Sorry.  
> 
> Still a comment in the code would, I think, help future spelunkers.
> 

Ok, I'll clarify the intention in this code that we agreed was better:

	case MPOL_PREFERRED:
		if (!remap) {
			int nid = first_node(pol->user_nodemask);

			if (node_isset(nid, *newmask))
				pol->v.preferred_node = nid;
			else
				pol->v.preferred_node = -1;
		} else
			pol->v.preferred_node = node_remap(pol->v.preferred_node,
							*mpolmask, *newmask);
		break;
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/