On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:04 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-07-12 22:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:45:07 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Something like this?
> >
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
> > +++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static void free_huge_page(struct page *
> >
> > static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
> > {
> > - static int nid = 0;
> > + static int prev_nid;
> > + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(nid_lock);
> > struct page *page;
> > - page = alloc_pages_node(nid, htlb_alloc_mask|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOWARN,
> > - HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
> > - nid = next_node(nid, node_online_map);
> > + int nid;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&nid_lock);
> > + nid = next_node(prev_nid, node_online_map);
> > if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> > nid = first_node(node_online_map);
> > + prev_nid = nid;
> > + spin_unlock(&nid_lock);
> > +
> > + page = alloc_pages_node(nid, htlb_alloc_mask|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOWARN,
> > + HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
> > if (page) {
> > set_compound_page_dtor(page, free_huge_page);
> > spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > _
> >
>
> The patch looks good for this bug, thanks :)
If you have time could you test it and sent it back at me please?
> if other caller give a invalid nid to alloc_pages_node(), __alloc_pages
> will crash again.
That would be a buggy caller, so we should fix that caller.
> So I think we add some sanity check for nid at alloc_pages_node is
> meaningful.
>
> another question, if (nid >= MAX_NUMNODES), may I set nid to 0 directly
> like following code?
>
> if (unlikly(nid >= MAX_NUMNODES)
> nid = 0
if (nid > MAX_NUMNODES) then that is a bug and we should report it (doing
this via a BUG() is OK) rather than quietly covering it up.
if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES) then we should set it to
first_node(node_online_map);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
