[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501231419420.11767@gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:20:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, mhocko@...e.cz
Subject: Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol:
remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *rtpn;
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *rtpz;
> - int tmp, node, zone;
> + int node, zone;
>
> for_each_node(node) {
Do for_each_online_node(node) {
instead?
> - tmp = node;
> - if (!node_state(node, N_NORMAL_MEMORY))
> - tmp = -1;
> - rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, tmp);
> + rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, node);
> BUG_ON(!rtpn);
>
> soft_limit_tree.rb_tree_per_node[node] = rtpn;
>
> --
>
> Is the assumption of this patch wrong? Does the specified node have
> to be online for the fallback to work?
>
> Thanks
>
--
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