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 e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5IGlm35019455 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:47:48 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5IGlmLZ040796 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:47:48 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5IGlmqt024851 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:47:48 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:47:22 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC 10/13] Memoryless nodes: Fix GFP_THISNODE behavior Message-ID: <20070618164722.GA10714@us.ibm.com> References: <20070614075026.607300756@sgi.com> <20070614075336.405903951@sgi.com> <20070614160704.GE7469@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070614160704.GE7469@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: clameter@sgi.com Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 14.06.2007 [09:07:04 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 14.06.2007 [00:50:36 -0700], clameter@sgi.com wrote: > > GFP_THISNODE checks that the zone selected is within the pgdat (node) of the > > first zone of a nodelist. That only works if the node has memory. A > > memoryless node will have its first node on another pgdat (node). > > > > GFP_THISNODE currently will return simply memory on the first pgdat. > > Thus it is returning memory on other nodes. GFP_THISNODE should fail > > if there is no local memory on a node. > > > > > > Add a new set of zonelists for each node that only contain the nodes > > that belong to the zones itself so that no fallback is possible. > > Should be > > Add a new set of zonelists for each node that only contain the zones > that belong to the node itself so that no fallback is possible? > > This is the last patch in the stack I should based my patches on, > correct (I believe 11-13 were mis-sends)? > > Will test everything and send out Acks later today, hopefully. Tested on a 4-node ppc64 w/ 2 memoryless nodes and a 4-node x86_64 w/ no memoryless nodes, with my patches applied on top (will send out the latest versions again). All get Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan Thanks for doing this work, Christoph! -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