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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 3C8CBC433DF for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038D12073E for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:54:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 038D12073E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7B6476B0002; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 73F546B0005; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:54:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 62E976B0006; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:54:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0135.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.135]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464D06B0002 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D55180AD811 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:54:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76958051268.20.crib52_470d48526e35 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD46018204142 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:54:34 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: crib52_470d48526e35 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3066 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by imf26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:54:33 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: uN3oeCt1eo1qumSHgRoUfONAQxZ/b9gx777YqzcFtSwozubLS/9Lt6E+tTstZQcY94CRtJGr8e sz5oY7HtaRng== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9660"; a="145377797" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,268,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="145377797" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jun 2020 13:54:32 -0700 IronPort-SDR: /w5HeHC6HpcWnoF9e2NMKtpKi/EkFPxqqB4SIzq3x3sBoVp6YmQiS38xeB2sRnz/c5kaWi/zM1 gTMfRkWvPq8g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,268,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="263070343" Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo.localdomain) ([10.7.201.21]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2020 13:54:31 -0700 Received: by tassilo.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E2E5E301B63; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:30 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Ben Widawsky Cc: linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Dan Williams , Dave Hansen , David Hildenbrand , David Rientjes , Jason Gunthorpe , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Lee Schermerhorn , Li Xinhai , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Mike Kravetz , Mina Almasry , Tejun Heo , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] multiple preferred nodes Message-ID: <20200622205430.GA818054@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20200619162425.1052382-1-ben.widawsky@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200619162425.1052382-1-ben.widawsky@intel.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BD46018204142 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:24:07AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > This patch series introduces the concept of the MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY mempolicy. So the reason for having a new policy is that you're worried some legacy application passes multiple nodes to MPOL_PREFERRED, where all but the first would be currently ignored. Is that right? Is there any indication that this is actually the case? If not I would prefer to just extend the semantics of the existing MPOL_PREFERRED. Even if there was such an legacy application any legacy behavior changes are likely not fatal, because preferred is only a hint anyways. Anybody who really requires the right nodes would use _BIND. -Andi