Regression: Re: [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:44:05 -0500
The subject patch causes a regression in the numactl package mempolicy
regression tests.
I'm using the numactl-1.0.2 package with the patches available at:
http://free.linux.hp.com/~lts/Patches/Numactl/numactl-1.0.2-patches-080226.tar.gz
The numastat and regress patches in that tarball are necessary for
recent kernels, else the tests will report false failures.
The following patch fixes the regression.
Lee
----------------------------------------------------
Against: 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 atop the following patches, which Andrew
has already added to the -mm tree:
[patch 1/6] mempolicy: convert MPOL constants to enum
[patch 2/6] mempolicy: support optional mode flags
[patch 3/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag
[patch 4/6] mempolicy: add bitmap_onto() and bitmap_fold() operations
[patch 5/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flag
[patch 6/6] mempolicy: update NUMA memory policy documentation
[patch -mm 1/4] mempolicy: move rebind functions
[patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
[patch -mm 3/4] mempolicy: small header file cleanup
Specifically this patch fixes problems introduced by the rework
of mpol_new() in patch 2/4 in the second series. As a result,
we're no longer accepting NULL/empty nodemask with MPOL_PREFERRED
as "local" allocation. This breaks the numactl regression tests.
"numactl --localalloc" <some command>" fails with invalid argument.
This patch fixes the regression by again treating NULL/empty nodemask
with MPOL_PREFERRED as "local allocation", and special casing this
condition, as needed, in mpol_new(), mpol_new_preferred() and
mpol_rebind_preferred().
It also appears that the patch series listed above required a non-empty
nodemask with MPOL_DEFAULT. However, I didn't test that. With this
patch, MPOL_DEFAULT effectively ignores the nodemask--empty or not.
This is a change in behavior that I have argued against, but the
regression tests don't test this, so I'm not going to attempt to address
it with this patch.
Note: I have no tests to test the 'STATIC_NODES and 'RELATIVE_NODES
behavior to ensure that this patch doesn't regress those.
Signed-off-by: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@xxxxxx>
mm/mempolicy.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1/mm/mempolicy.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1.orig/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-03-07 15:22:01.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1/mm/mempolicy.c 2008-03-07 15:37:43.000000000 -0500
@@ -158,9 +158,12 @@ static int mpol_new_interleave(struct me
static int mpol_new_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
{
- if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
- return -EINVAL;
- pol->v.preferred_node = first_node(*nodes);
+ if (!nodes)
+ pol->v.preferred_node = -1; /* local allocation */
+ else if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
+ return -EINVAL; /* no allowed nodes */
+ else
+ pol->v.preferred_node = first_node(*nodes);
return 0;
}
@@ -178,34 +181,43 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(unsign
{
struct mempolicy *policy;
nodemask_t cpuset_context_nmask;
+ int localalloc = 0;
int ret;
pr_debug("setting mode %d flags %d nodes[0] %lx\n",
mode, flags, nodes ? nodes_addr(*nodes)[0] : -1);
- if (nodes && nodes_empty(*nodes) && mode != MPOL_PREFERRED)
- return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
if (mode == MPOL_DEFAULT)
return NULL;
+ if (!nodes || nodes_empty(*nodes)) {
+ if (mode != MPOL_PREFERRED)
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+ localalloc = 1; /* special case: no mode flags */
+ }
policy = kmem_cache_alloc(policy_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!policy)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
atomic_set(&policy->refcnt, 1);
- cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
- if (flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
- mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes,
- &cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
- else
- nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes,
- cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
policy->policy = mode;
- policy->flags = flags;
- if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(policy))
- policy->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
- else
- policy->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = cpuset_mems_allowed(current);
- ret = mpol_ops[mode].create(policy, &cpuset_context_nmask);
+ if (!localalloc) {
+ policy->flags = flags;
+ cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
+ if (flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
+ mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes,
+ &cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
+ else
+ nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes,
+ cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
+ if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(policy))
+ policy->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
+ else
+ policy->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
+ cpuset_mems_allowed(current);
+ }
+
+ ret = mpol_ops[mode].create(policy,
+ localalloc ? NULL : &cpuset_context_nmask);
if (ret < 0) {
kmem_cache_free(policy_cache, policy);
return ERR_PTR(ret);
@@ -247,6 +259,10 @@ static void mpol_rebind_preferred(struct
{
nodemask_t tmp;
+ /*
+ * check 'STATIC_NODES first, as preferred_node == -1 may be
+ * a temporary, "fallback" state for this policy.
+ */
if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) {
int node = first_node(pol->w.user_nodemask);
@@ -254,6 +270,8 @@ static void mpol_rebind_preferred(struct
pol->v.preferred_node = node;
else
pol->v.preferred_node = -1;
+ } else if (pol->v.preferred_node == -1) {
+ return; /* no remap required for explicit local alloc */
} else if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES) {
mpol_relative_nodemask(&tmp, &pol->w.user_nodemask, nodes);
pol->v.preferred_node = first_node(tmp);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Regression: Re: [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
- From: David Rientjes
- Re: Regression: Re: [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
- References:
- [patch -mm 1/4] mempolicy: move rebind functions
- From: David Rientjes
- [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
- From: David Rientjes
- [patch -mm 1/4] mempolicy: move rebind functions
- Prev by Date: Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [BLUETOOTH] Add another Broadcom device
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch -mm 4/4] mempolicy: remove includes for duplicate headers
- Next by thread: Re: Regression: Re: [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
