From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Audit of "all uses of node_online()" In-Reply-To: <1186085994.5040.98.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070727194316.18614.36380.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070727194322.18614.68855.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070731192241.380e93a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731200522.c19b3b95.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731203203.2691ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1185977011.5059.36.camel@localhost> <1186085994.5040.98.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org