Re: Audit of "all uses of node_online()"

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> > Right. I think we first need to get the basic set straight. In order to be 
> > complete we need to audit all uses of node_online() in the kernel and 
> > think about those uses. They may require either N_NORMAL_MEMORY or 
> > N_HIGH_MEMORY depending on the check being for a page cache or a kernel 
> > allocation.
> 
> Below is a list of files in 23-rc1-mm2 with the memoryless nodes patches
> applied [the last ones I posted, not the most recent from Christoph's
> tree] that contain the strings 'node_online' or 'online_node'--i.e.
> possible uses of the node_online_map or the for_each_online_node macro.
> 48 files in all, I think.

Great thanks.
 
> Note that the list includes a lot of architectural dependent files.
> Shall I do a separate patch for each arch, so that arch maintainer can
> focus on that [I assume they'll want to review], or a single "jumbo
> patch" to reduce traffic?

Separate arch patches would be good.

> include/linux/topology.h
> mm/mempolicy.c
> 	? should BIND nodes be limited to nodes with memory?

Or it could automatically limit to those by anding with N_HIGH_MEMORY?

> 	? ALL policies in mpol_new()?
> 	? should mpol_check_policy() require a subset of nodes with memory?

Yea difficult question. What would be impact be if we require that? A node 
going down could cause the application to fail?

> mm/shmem.c
> 	fixed mount option parsing and superblock setup.
> mm/page-writeback.c
> 	fixed highmem_dirtyable_memory() to just look at N_MEMORY

N_HIGH_MEMORY right?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>