[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1288385883.2680.17.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:58:03 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, brgerst@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86-32: Restore irq stacks NUMA-aware
allocations
Le samedi 30 octobre 2010 à 00:28 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:32:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 06:43 +0000, tip-bot for Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > + irqctx = page_address(alloc_pages_node(cpu_to_node(cpu),
> > > + THREAD_FLAGS,
> > > + THREAD_ORDER));
> >
> > Shouldn't we be checking for a NULL return from alloc_pages_node()
> > before calling page_address() on it?
> > --
>
> Something like below I guess, but probably we could try to allocate
> on appropriate NUMA node first and if it fails -- via old alloc_pages
> and if it fail in turn -- then we panic.
Maybe my commit message was not clear :
There is no need to test return from alloc_pages_node() and do the
fallback. It already done properly.
If NULL is returned, then there is no memory at all on the machine.
I tested my patch on my machine with node 1 with HighMem only, and
alloc_pages_node(1, flags, order) gave me a page from node 0.
--
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