From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA31C48BD7 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBC921852 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:57:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561607834; bh=/ADTO1E4aEzzEHDIMo3CfYNwAeZmCkOo4BbM1VeAIWE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=SeAeF+QFkfrKAbD2MCY02OKgDRQH4Fv2Vxc1/KEL7i4n0zyLGsdrU4sh54rmKyDoZ +9ozMVPn9rY5oRB5/wuV9XoSQ6+9efMrWty7R6fx2gePB/kw+Vbqd53mwPammNCioS K781kuHjKZCWYlcfSQ4um/2g17rC2ZJKNJiGMNgs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727109AbfF0D5N (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:57:13 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39482 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726640AbfF0D5N (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:57:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-223-200-170.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.223.200.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCE9C21841; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:57:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561607832; bh=/ADTO1E4aEzzEHDIMo3CfYNwAeZmCkOo4BbM1VeAIWE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2UONyGGMTtlEsb/66mZHRuM9LWiMvATVylVUq0a4E0J3dMQcf4r1Q4+fAPrLrcnUf ZrADGVLjSa8IAAONkU1uxWYm3XwMo09Neg7Q9TmaCjtjIKSPXCGTqqxd0FN+hqnwbT 6AOYBpnTaoEbPcHcmpEl/vWs2hKlCkAbcabdv438= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:57:11 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: zhong jiang Cc: Vlastimil Babka , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix an incorrect rebind node in mpol_rebind_nodemask Message-Id: <20190626205711.379c61b9cdfb9f43ae71c844@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <5CEBECF9.2060500@huawei.com> References: <1558768043-23184-1-git-send-email-zhongjiang@huawei.com> <20190525112851.ee196bcbbc33bf9e0d869236@linux-foundation.org> <2ff829ea-1d74-9d4b-8501-e9c2ebdc36ef@suse.cz> <5CEBECF9.2060500@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 May 2019 21:58:17 +0800 zhong jiang wrote: > On 2019/5/27 20:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 5/25/19 8:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> (Cc Vlastimil) > > Oh dear, 2 years and I forgot all the details about how this works. > > > >> On Sat, 25 May 2019 15:07:23 +0800 zhong jiang wrote: > >> > >>> We bind an different node to different vma, Unluckily, > >>> it will bind different vma to same node by checking the /proc/pid/numa_maps. > >>> Commit 213980c0f23b ("mm, mempolicy: simplify rebinding mempolicies when updating cpusets") > >>> has introduced the issue. when we change memory policy by seting cpuset.mems, > >>> A process will rebind the specified policy more than one times. > >>> if the cpuset_mems_allowed is not equal to user specified nodes. hence the issue will trigger. > >>> Maybe result in the out of memory which allocating memory from same node. > > I have a hard time understanding what the problem is. Could you please > > write it as a (pseudo) reproducer? I.e. an example of the process/admin > > mempolicy/cpuset actions that have some wrong observed results vs the > > correct expected result. > Sorry, I havn't an testcase to reproduce the issue. At first, It was disappeared by > my colleague to configure the xml to start an vm. To his suprise, The bind mempolicy > doesn't work. So... what do we do with this patch? > Thanks, > zhong jiang > >>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > >>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > >>> @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static void mpol_rebind_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes) > >>> else { > >>> nodes_remap(tmp, pol->v.nodes,pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed, > >>> *nodes); > >>> - pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = tmp; > >>> + pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = *nodes; > > Looks like a mechanical error on my side when removing the code for > > step1+step2 rebinding. Before my commit there was > > > > pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = step ? tmp : *nodes; > > > > Since 'step' was removed and thus 0, I should have used *nodes indeed. > > Thanks for catching that. Was that an ack? > >>> } > >>> > >>> if (nodes_empty(tmp)) > >> hm, I'm not surprised the code broke. What the heck is going on in > >> there? It used to have a perfunctory comment, but Vlastimil deleted > >> it. > > Yeah the comment was specific for the case that was being removed. > > > >> Could someone please propose a comment for the above code block > >> explaining why we're doing what we do? > > I'll have to relearn this first... > > > > >