From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750724AbWAPQ1d (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:27:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750726AbWAPQ1d (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:27:33 -0500 Received: from silver.veritas.com ([143.127.12.111]:22614 "EHLO silver.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbWAPQ1d (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:27:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:28:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@goblin.wat.veritas.com To: Christoph Lameter cc: Andi Kleen , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List Subject: Re: Race in new page migration code? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060114155517.GA30543@wotan.suse.de> <20060114181949.GA27382@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2006 16:27:32.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[C07D31E0:01C61AB9] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > It also applies to the policy compliance check. > > > > Good point, I missed that: you've inadventently changed the behaviour > > of sys_mbind when it encounters a zero page from a disallowed node. > > Another reason to remove your PageReserved test. > > The zero page always come from node zero on IA64. I think this is more the > inadvertent fixing of a bug. The policy compliance check currently fails > if an address range contains a zero page but node zero is not contained in > the nodelist. To me it sounds more like you introduced a bug than fixed one. If MPOL_MF_STRICT and the zero page is found but not in the nodelist demanded, then it's right to refuse, I'd say. If Andi shares your view that the zero pages should be ignored, I won't argue; but we shouldn't change behaviour by mistake, without review or comment. Hugh