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_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 8A6D7C10F05 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB272175B for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727404AbfCTSsw (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:48:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48646 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727166AbfCTSsw (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:48:52 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22A6AFBF; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1553107714.2927.2.camel@suse.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: make mbind() return -EIO when MPOL_MF_STRICT is specified From: Oscar Salvador To: Yang Shi Cc: chrubis@suse.cz, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:48:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3c880e88-6eb7-cd6d-fbf3-394b89355e10@linux.alibaba.com> References: <1553020556-38583-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190320081643.3c4m5tec5vx653sn@d104.suse.de> <3c880e88-6eb7-cd6d-fbf3-394b89355e10@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-03-20 at 11:31 -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > No, this is not correct. queue_pages_pmd() may return 0, which means > THP > gets split. If it returns 0 the code should just fall through instead > of > returning. Right, I overlooked that. > It sounds not correct to me. We need check if there is existing page > on > the node which is not allowed by the policy. This is what > queue_pages_required() does. Bleh, I guess it was too early in the morning. That is the whole point of it actually, so that was quite wrong. Sorry for trying to mislead you ;-) Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3