From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933073Ab0J2VWG (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:22:06 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:58503 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751200Ab0J2VWD (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:22:03 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; b=gFE4gm66H9hlZyGCrwC6d1OqpjnKfT6fKDya0pJlDvFh1xLilgzAdBHX2xcmaMY01s PlOWNiKxJAfh4XngCmtoTKt37+IoyJ9GMdeBCVsJM+hcLcRWd60krS9cmtafVgK9vD0I ++5su/tH1cZm6ckb1U6rDD+XBoBb9L0L5RCFQ= Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:21:59 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Peter Zijlstra , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-32: Restore irq stacks NUMA-aware allocations Message-ID: <20101029212159.GD6130@lenovo> References: <1288276854.2649.607.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1288377146.1988.0.camel@laptop> <20101029202809.GB6130@lenovo> <1288385883.2680.17.camel@edumazet-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1288385883.2680.17.camel@edumazet-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:58:03PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le samedi 30 octobre 2010 à 00:28 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov a écrit : > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:32:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 06:43 +0000, tip-bot for Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > + irqctx = page_address(alloc_pages_node(cpu_to_node(cpu), > > > > + THREAD_FLAGS, > > > > + THREAD_ORDER)); > > > > > > Shouldn't we be checking for a NULL return from alloc_pages_node() > > > before calling page_address() on it? > > > -- > > > > Something like below I guess, but probably we could try to allocate > > on appropriate NUMA node first and if it fails -- via old alloc_pages > > and if it fail in turn -- then we panic. > > Maybe my commit message was not clear : > > There is no need to test return from alloc_pages_node() and do the > fallback. It already done properly. > Yes Eric, somehow managed to miss that, my bad. Cyrill