From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:32:30 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [BUG] at mm/slab.c:3320 In-Reply-To: <84144f020801170431l2d6d0d63i1fb7ebc5145539f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20080107102301.db52ab64.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080109065015.GG7602@us.ibm.com> <20080109185859.GD11852@skywalker> <20080109214707.GA26941@us.ibm.com> <20080109221315.GB26941@us.ibm.com> <84144f020801170431l2d6d0d63i1fb7ebc5145539f4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Nishanth Aravamudan , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, bob.picco@hp.com, mel@skynet.ie, Andrew Morton List-ID: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > + if (!objp) { > > + int node_id = numa_node_id(); > > + if (likely(cache->nodelists[node_id])) /* fast path */ > > + objp = ____cache_alloc_node(cache, flags, node_id); > > + else /* this function can do good fallback */ > > + objp = __cache_alloc_node(cache, flags, node_id, > > + __builtin_return_address(0)); > > + } > > But __cache_alloc_node() will call fallback_alloc() that does > cache_grow() for the node that doesn't have N_NORMAL_MEMORY, no? No fallback_alloc will fallback to a node that has normal memory. > Shouldn't we just revert 04231b3002ac53f8a64a7bd142fde3fa4b6808c6 for > 2.6.24 as this is a clear regression from 2.6.23? Hmmm... Does reverting it actually fix the issue? We have done a lot of changes in regards to memoryless nodes. -- 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