From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:40:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Audit of "all uses of node_online()" In-Reply-To: <1186611582.5055.95.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> <1186611582.5055.95.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: ak@suse.de, Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > First note that mpol_check_policy() is always called just before > mpol_new() [except in the case of share policy init which is covered by > the fix mentioned below in previous mail re: parsing mount options]. > Now, looking at this more, I think mpol_check_policy() could [should?] > ensure that the argument nodemask is non-null after ANDing with the > N_HIGH_MEMORY mask--i.e., contains at least one node with memory. Hmmm... I thought about this yesterday and I thought that maybe the nodemask needs to allow all possible nodes? What if the nodemask is going to be used to select a node for a device? Or a cpu on a certain set of nodes? If we restrict it to the set of valid memory nodes then the policy can only be used to select memory nodes. -- 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