On Thu 27-05-21 21:34:36, Feng Tang wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 02:26:24PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Thu 27-05-21 20:10:41, Feng Tang wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:20:08AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Wed 26-05-21 13:01:42, Feng Tang wrote:

quoted

Now the only remaining case of a real 'local' policy faked by
'prefer' policy plus MPOL_F_LOCAL bit is:

A valid 'prefer' policy with a valid 'preferred' node is 'rebind'
to a nodemask which doesn't contains the 'preferred' node, then it
will handle allocation with 'local' policy.

Add a new 'MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP' bit for this case, and kill the
MPOL_F_LOCAL bit, which could simplify the code much.

As I've pointed out in the reply to the previous patch. It would have
been much better if most of the MPOL_F_LOCAL usage was gone by this
patch.

I also dislike a new MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP. This smells like sneaking the
hack back in after you have painstakingly removed it. So this looks like
a step backwards to me. I also do not understand why do we need the
rebind callback for local policy at all. There is no node mask for local
so what is going on here?

This is the special case 4 for 'perfer' policy with MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
flag set, say it prefer node 1, when it is later 'refind' to a new
nodemask node 2-3, according to current code it will be add the
MPOL_F_LOCAL bit and performs 'local' policy acctually. And in future
it is 'rebind' again with a nodemask 1-2, it will be restored back
to 'prefer' policy with preferred node 1.

Honestly I still do not follow the actual problem. 

I was confused too, and don't know the original thought behind it. This
case 4 was just imagined by reading the code.

quoted

A preferred node is a
_hint_. If you rebind the task to a different cpuset then why should we
actually care? The allocator will fallback to the closest node according
to the distance metric. Maybe the original code was trying to handle
that in some way but I really do fail to understand that code and I
strongly suspect it is more likely to overengineered rather than backed
by a real usecase. I might be wrong here but then this is an excellent
opportunity to clarify all those subtleties.

From the code, the original special handling may be needed in 3 cases:
    get_policy_nodemask()
    policy_node()
    mempolicy_slab_node()
to not return the preset prefer_nid.

I am sorry but I do not follow. What is actually wrong if the preferred
node is outside of the cpuset nodemask?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs