From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD726B01E3 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 18:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o4FMjFeU003863 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:45:15 -0700 Received: from qyk2 (qyk2.prod.google.com [10.241.83.130]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o4FMjADf007755 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:45:10 -0700 Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so4852572qyk.20 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:45:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1273869997-12720-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> From: Greg Thelen Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 15:44:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Consider the entire user address space during node migration Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Lee Schermerhorn , Mel Gorman , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:31 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi > > Mysteriously, I haven't receive original post. > So now I'm guessing you acked following patch. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/14/393 > > but I don't think it is correct. > > > - =A0 =A0 check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE, &nmask, > > + =A0 =A0 check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE_MAX, &nmask, > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 flags | MPOL_MF_DISCONTIG_O= K, &pagelist); > > Because TASK_SIZE_MAX is defined on x86 only. Why can we ignore other pla= tform? > Please put following line anywhere. > > #define TASK_SIZE_MAX TASK_SIZE I just send out patch v2, which uses mm->task_size rather than TASK_SIZE_MAX. Some non-x86 architectures do not define TASK_SIZE_MAX, but do make TASK_SIZE depend on the current task. So I feel it would be better to refer to the mm struct to obtain the needed address space limit information rather than TASK_SIZE[_MAX], which can depend on current. -- Greg -- 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