On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:00:55PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:42:42PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists. > >> > > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what > >> > > > we have. > >> > > > >> > > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints? > >> > > >> > Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft > >> > policy" > >> > Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup. > >> > >> Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory > >> policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues. > > > > Migration on the page level is needed for the memory error handling. > > > > Updates: you mean not allowing to set the policy when there are already > > multiple mappers? I could see that causing some unexpected behaviour. > > Presumably > > a standard database will only set it at the beginning, but I don't know > > if that would work for all users. > > We don't need to kill migration core. We only need to kill that mbind(2) > updates > vma->policy of shmem. [...]
So should I (and Greg) drop 'mm: mempolicy: Let vma_merge and vma_split handle vma->vm_policy linkages' from the pending stable releases? Or is that OK as an interim fix until these changes go into mainline? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html