On Tuesday 19 February 2008 10:52:30 pm Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > dev_to_node could return node that without RAM. So check it before use > > it in kmalloc_node > > > - retval = kmalloc_node(sizeof(*retval), GFP_KERNEL, dev_to_node(dev)); > > + node = dev_to_node(dev); > > + if (node == -1 || !node_online(node)) > > + node = numa_node_id(); > > + > > + retval = kmalloc_node(sizeof(*retval), GFP_KERNEL, node); > > so this is about not crashing during bootup on nodes that have CPUs but > which have no node-specific memory attached, right? > > Shouldnt kmalloc_node() be made more robust instead? I.e. push the same > code into kmalloc_node() - and make sure it will allocate _something_? > That would probably also fix a similar bug in net/core/skbuff.c's > __netdev_alloc_skb(), which too passes a dev_to_node() result to an > allocator.
sound good idea to update the dev_to_node to make sure it will return -1 or the one is online. Will send updated one. YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
