From: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>
To: John Blackwood <john.blackwood@ccur.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com>
Subject: Re: [bug ?] do_get_mempolicy()
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:23:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1215523409.22680.9.camel@murky.zko.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <486D3A4A.6000502@ccur.com>
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 16:44 -0400, John Blackwood wrote:
> Hi Lee,
John: I'm just getting back from a long weekend and I'm wading through
a big e-mail back log. I'll take a look at this when I get to the end
of my inbox. I/m probably responsible for that line. I recall thinking
that get_mempolicy() should return the policy that one would pass back
in to achieve the same effect. But, I blew it.
>
> I'm having unexpected results with get_mempolicy(2) in 2.6.26, and
> I am hoping that you can either agree with me, or maybe comment on my
> misconceptions.
>
> When I have a task with no special task mempolicy (the default mempolicy),
> when I call get_mempolicy(2), it returns a policy value of 2 (MPOL_BIND)
> with a NULL nodemask.
>
> I believe that this is because of the code in do_get_mempolicy() that does:
>
> *policy |= pol->flags;
>
> in the else case when flags do not contain MPOL_F_NODE.
I think that need to mask off the internal flags, and shift the
remaining ones up to the correct location. I'll send a patch, if no one
beats me to it.
>
> I guess I don't understand why we are ORing in the pol->flags into the
> *policy value. For example, when this is for the default_policy, the
> MPOL_F_LOCAL flag (which has a value of 2) gets stuffed into the *policy
> location, and a get_mempolicy(2) caller sees this as the MPOL_BIND
> mempolicy.
>
> Maybe the "*policy |= pol->flags;" line should be removed ?
>
> That is, maybe it was valid at some point, but subsequent changes
> make this line of code no longer valid ?
>
> Sorry if I'm out-to-lunch here...
No, doesn't appear that way..
>
> Thanks very much for you time and considerations on this issue.
>
thanks for reporting it.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-08 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-03 20:44 John Blackwood
2008-07-03 21:44 ` David Rientjes
2008-07-07 7:05 ` David Rientjes
2008-07-08 13:43 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-07-08 13:23 ` Lee Schermerhorn [this message]
2008-07-07 14:41 John Blackwood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1215523409.22680.9.camel@murky.zko.hp.com \
--to=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=joe.korty@ccur.com \
--cc=john.blackwood@ccur.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome