From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:48:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YLX0SFNfXVxcjV2/@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210601005513.GA15828@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
On Tue 01-06-21 08:55:13, Feng Tang wrote:
[...]
> Current memory policy code has some confusing and ambiguous part about
> MPOL_LOCAL policy, as it is handled as a faked MPOL_PREFERRED one, and
> there are many places having to distinguish them. Also the nodemask
> intersection check needs cleanup to be more explicit for OOM use, and
> handle MPOL_INTERLEAVE correctly. This patchset cleans up these and
> unifies the parameter sanity check for mbind() and set_mempolicy().
Looks good to me. I would just add that this cleanup helps to make
further changes easier (notably MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-01 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-31 14:05 [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Feng Tang
2021-05-31 14:05 ` [v3 PATCH 1/3] mm/mempolicy: cleanup nodemask intersection check for oom Feng Tang
2021-06-01 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-01 11:08 ` Feng Tang
2021-06-01 23:56 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-31 14:05 ` [v3 PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL_PREFERRED policy Feng Tang
2021-06-01 8:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-06-01 11:29 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-31 14:05 ` [v3 PATCH 3/3] mm/mempolicy: unify the parameter sanity check for mbind and set_mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-06-01 8:46 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31 21:41 ` [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Andrew Morton
2021-06-01 0:55 ` Feng Tang
2021-06-01 8:48 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=YLX0SFNfXVxcjV2/@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.