From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3PGsWMD009935 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:54:32 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m3PGsRO1188040 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:54:32 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m3PGsQPp018608 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:54:26 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:54:24 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [patch 02/18] hugetlb: factor out huge_new_page Message-ID: <20080425165424.GA9680@us.ibm.com> References: <20080423015302.745723000@nick.local0.net> <20080423015429.834926000@nick.local0.net> <20080424235431.GB4741@us.ibm.com> <20080424235829.GC4741@us.ibm.com> <481183FC.9060408@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <481183FC.9060408@firstfloor.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, abh@cray.com, wli@holomorphy.com, clameter@sgi.com List-ID: On 25.04.2008 [09:10:52 +0200], Andi Kleen wrote: > Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 24.04.2008 [16:54:31 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > >> On 23.04.2008 [11:53:04 +1000], npiggin@suse.de wrote: > >>> Needed to avoid code duplication in follow up patches. > >>> > >>> This happens to fix a minor bug. When alloc_bootmem_node returns > >>> a fallback node on a different node than passed the old code > >>> would have put it into the free lists of the wrong node. > >>> Now it would end up in the freelist of the correct node. > >> This is rather frustrating. The whole point of having the __GFP_THISNODE > >> flag is to indicate off-node allocations are *not* supported from the > >> caller... This was all worked on quite heavily a while back. > > Perhaps it was, but the result in hugetlb.c was not correct. Huh? There is a case in current code (current hugepage sizes) that allows __GFP_THISNODE to go off-node? > > Oh I see. This patch refers to a bug that only is introduced by patch > > 12/18...perhaps *that* patch should add the nid calculation in the > > helper, if it is truly needed. > > No, the bug is already there even without the bootmem patch. Where does alloc_pages_node go off-node? It is a bug in the core VM if it does, as we decided __GFP_THISNODE semantics with a nid specified indicates *no* fallback should occur. Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org