Le mardi 07 décembre 2010 à 22:03 -0500, Lee Schermerhorn a écrit : > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 16:04 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > 2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > > know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > > > > commit 800416f799e0723635ac2d720ad4449917a1481c upstream. > >
> > > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > > @@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *pol > > (void)first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, highest_zoneidx, > > &policy->v.nodes, > > &zone); > > - return zone->node; > > + return zone ? zone->node : numa_node_id(); > > I think this should be numa_mem_id(). Given the documented purpose of > slab_node(), we want a node from which page allocation is likely to > succeed. numa_node_id() can return a memoryless node for, e.g., some > configurations of some HP ia64 platforms. numa_mem_id() was introduced > to return that same node from which "local" mempolicy would allocate > pages. Hmm... numa_mem_id() was introduced in 2.6.35 as an optimization. When I did this patch (to fix a bug), mm/mempolicy.c only contained calls to numa_node_id() (and still is today) By the way, anybody knows how I can emulate a memoryless node on a dual node x86_64 machine (with memory present on both nodes) ? _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
