[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTink6jV2RNoIaym4HcIx-mU1yIKURWahw8waNMQW@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 15:44:50 -0700
From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Consider the entire user address space during node
migration
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:31 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Mysteriously, I haven't receive original post.
> So now I'm guessing you acked following patch.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/14/393
>
> but I don't think it is correct.
>
> > - check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE, &nmask,
> > + check_range(mm, mm->mmap->vm_start, TASK_SIZE_MAX, &nmask,
> > flags | MPOL_MF_DISCONTIG_OK, &pagelist);
>
> Because TASK_SIZE_MAX is defined on x86 only. Why can we ignore other platform?
> Please put following line anywhere.
>
> #define TASK_SIZE_MAX TASK_SIZE
I just send out patch v2, which uses mm->task_size rather than
TASK_SIZE_MAX. Some non-x86 architectures do not define
TASK_SIZE_MAX, but do make TASK_SIZE depend on the current task. So I
feel it would be better to refer to the mm struct to obtain the needed
address space limit information rather than TASK_SIZE[_MAX], which can
depend on current.
--
Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists