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 e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l77N21so032031 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:02:01 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l77N21qe167252 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:02:01 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l77N20Y7030415 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:02:01 -0600 Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:02:00 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2][UPDATED] hugetlb: search harder for memory in alloc_fresh_huge_page() Message-ID: <20070807230200.GC15714@us.ibm.com> References: <20070807171432.GY15714@us.ibm.com> <1186517722.5067.31.camel@localhost> <20070807221240.GB15714@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , anton@samba.org, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 07.08.2007 [15:54:36 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > > > Not that I don't trust __GFP_THISNODE, but may I suggest a > > > "VM_BUG_ON(page_to_nid(page) != nid)" -- up above the spin_lock(), of > > > course. Better yet, add the assertion and drop this one line change? > > Dont do this change. Which change? Using nid without a VM_BUG_ON (as in the original patch) or adding a VM_BUG_ON and using page_to_nid()? Thanks, 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