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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 A9622C47082 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BF4610C9 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:22:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 60BF4610C9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B90F86B0072; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B41006B0073; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:22:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9E1D88D0001; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:22:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0080.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.80]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700E26B0072 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 04:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05481180397E2 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:22:54 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78200835468.03.C741D60 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B11537F for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:22:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1622449372; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bOHyuw1oN2PhddhLWJ1zLVZJD6pR6eYc+6ecOHXcHOQ=; b=NxEY1WWgKOfXAUlZvH9NB1+ElC0v5onX2TtNn2XLr2rD8kvwGEJSs9V1pfNY2jSknnsiAZ 0BYmldSutRoLVyvH8agb8W1wFK2YUmysPP1FTvIkSFo2bFLyKwtaF+ffdYBadnUZqtPtVO w5WV4bvcRqOwqrGhGXw0z5pj94BmqCA= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B77DB4AC; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 10:22:51 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Message-ID: References: <1622005302-23027-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1622005302-23027-5-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210527121041.GA7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210527133436.GD7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210528043954.GA32292@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210531073252.GC56979@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210531073252.GC56979@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1B11537F Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=NxEY1WWg; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: 8wfpyikpmeonxr6tjdt4o4kbcmosd577 X-HE-Tag: 1622449358-648667 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 Mon 31-05-21 15:32:52, Feng Tang wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 09:00:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I can see you have posted a newer version which I haven't seen yet but > > this is really better to get resolved before building up more on top. > > And let me be explicit. I do believe that rebinding preferred policy is > > just bogus and it should be dropped altogether on the ground that a > > preference is a mere hint from userspace where to start the allocation. > > Yes, the current mpol_rebind_preferred()'s logic is confusing. Let me > try to understand it correctly, are you suggesting to do nothing for > 'prefer's rebinding regarding MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES and MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES, > while just setting 'pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed' to the new nodemask? yes this is exactly what I've had in mind. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs