From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <84144f020802180918h6fb4d52fw4c592407a16b19c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <84144f020802180918h6fb4d52fw4c592407a16b19c0@mail.gmail.com> <16085.1203350863@redhat.com> Subject: Re: Slab initialisation problems on MN10300 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:38:31 +0000 Message-ID: <24841.1203367111@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, clameter@sgi.com, mpm@selenic.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Pekka Enberg wrote: > would put struct arraycache_init to kmalloc-32 and struct kmem_list3 > to kmalloc-64. So are INDEX_AC and INDEX_L3 really equivalent? To > which cache do they refer to? (gdb) p sizeof(struct arraycache_init) $1 = 20 (gdb) p sizeof(struct kmem_list3) $2 = 52 However, the compiler has eliminated the test: if (INDEX_AC == INDEX_L3) even though it's compiled with -O0. This is odd. I'll have to investigate the preprocessor output. > And if this broke recently, you might want to try and see if commit > 556a169dab38b5100df6f4a45b655dddd3db94c1 ("slab: fix bootstrap on > memoryless node") is at fault here by reverting it. Well, the MN10300 arch worked in -mm, but no longer works now that the patches have been merged into Linus's tree. Bisecting is probably not an option. Thanks, anyway. I've got something to investigate. David -- 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