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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).