[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180831204543.GA3885@techadventures.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 22:45:43 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
To: Pasha Tatashin <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>
Cc: "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: Clean up check_for_memory
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 02:04:59PM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> Are you saying the code that is in mainline is broken? Because we set
> node_set_state(nid, N_NORMAL_MEMORY); even on node with N_HIGH_MEMORY:
>
> 6826 if (N_NORMAL_MEMORY != N_HIGH_MEMORY &&
> 6827 zone_type <= ZONE_NORMAL)
> 6828 node_set_state(nid, N_NORMAL_MEMORY);
Yes, and that is fine. Although the curent code is subtle for the reasons
I expplained in the changelog.
What I am saying is that the code you suggested would not work
because your code either sets N_NORMAL_MEMORY or N_HIGH_MEMORY and then
breaks the loop.
That is wrong because when we are on a CONFIG_HIGHMEM system,
it can happen that we have a node with both types, so we have to set
both types of memory.
N_HIGH_MEMORY, and N_NORMAL_MEMORY if the zone is <= ZONE_NORMAL.
Thanks
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists