LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <>
To: Andrew Morton <>,
	zhong jiang <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix an incorrect rebind node in mpol_rebind_nodemask
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:23:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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.

>> --- 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.

>>  	}
>>  	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...

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-27 12:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-25  7:07 zhong jiang
2019-05-25 18:28 ` Andrew Morton
2019-05-27 12:23   ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2019-05-27 13:58     ` zhong jiang
2019-06-27  3:57       ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-27  7:47         ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-06-27  9:59 ` Vlastimil Babka

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix an incorrect rebind node in mpol_rebind_nodemask' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).