Re: [PATCH v2] tmpfs not interleaving properly

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>]

(5/31/12 4:25 PM), Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:09:15 -0400
> KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>>>    	/*
>>>    	 * alloc_page_vma() will drop the shared policy reference
>>>    	 */
>>> -	return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, 0);
>>> +	return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, info->node_offset<<   PAGE_SHIFT );
>>
>> 3rd argument of alloc_page_vma() is an address. This is type error.
>
> Well, it's an unsigned long...
>
> But yes, it is conceptually wrong and *looks* weird.  I think we can
> address that by overcoming our peculair aversion to documenting our
> code, sigh.  This?

Sorry, no.

addr agrument of alloc_pages_vma() have two meanings.

1) interleave node seed
2) look-up key of shmem policy

I think this patch break (2). shmem_get_policy(pol, addr) assume caller honor to
pass correct address.

Oh, yes. *NOW*, we are discussing shmem policy removing. but it haven't be removed.
Please don't break.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>