[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC7D629.3090801@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:35:53 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>, hughd@...gle.com,
npiggin@...il.com, cl@...ux.com, lee.schermerhorn@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tmpfs not interleaving properly
(5/31/12 4:25 PM), Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:09:15 -0400
> KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>>> /*
>>> * alloc_page_vma() will drop the shared policy reference
>>> */
>>> - return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, 0);
>>> + return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, info->node_offset<< PAGE_SHIFT );
>>
>> 3rd argument of alloc_page_vma() is an address. This is type error.
>
> Well, it's an unsigned long...
>
> But yes, it is conceptually wrong and *looks* weird. I think we can
> address that by overcoming our peculair aversion to documenting our
> code, sigh. This?
Sorry, no.
addr agrument of alloc_pages_vma() have two meanings.
1) interleave node seed
2) look-up key of shmem policy
I think this patch break (2). shmem_get_policy(pol, addr) assume caller honor to
pass correct address.
Oh, yes. *NOW*, we are discussing shmem policy removing. but it haven't be removed.
Please don't break.
--
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