From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C6C6B01E3 for ; Wed, 12 May 2010 16:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] numa: slab: use numa_mem_id() for slab local memory node From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <4170.1273692351@localhost> References: <20100415172950.8801.60358.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100415173030.8801.84836.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100512114900.a12c4b35.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1273691503.6985.142.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4170.1273692351@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:03:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1273694615.6985.153.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Mel Gorman , Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , eric.whitney@hp.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 15:25 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:11:43 EDT, Lee Schermerhorn said: > > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 11:49 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I have a note here that this patch "breaks slab.c". But I don't recall what > > > the problem was and I don't see a fix against this patch in your recently-sent > > > fixup series? > > > > Is that Valdis Kletnieks' issue? That was an i386 build. Happened > > because the earlier patches didn't properly default numa_mem_id() to > > numa_node_id() for the i386 build. The rework to those patches has > > fixed that. I have successfully built mmotm with the rework patches > > for i386+!NUMA. Valdis tested the series and confirmed that it fixed > > the problem. > > I thought the problem was common to both i386 and X86_64 non-NUMA (which is > where I hit the problem). In any case, builds OK for me now. The x86_64 !NUMA issue was another one I introduced in the rework -- patch 1/7 first version you tested. Fixed in the current version. Happened because x86_64 defines it's own fallback for numa_node_id(). See the description of patch 1/7. Turns out x86_64 builds fine with NUMA or !NUMA if I just remove the !NUMA numa_node_id() definition. I'll submit that patch shortly. Lee -- 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