On 10.10.2007 [11:53:40 -0400], Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:40 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > <snip> > > ==== > > Subject: Use specified node ID with GFP_THISNODE if available > > > > It had been assumed that __GFP_THISNODE meant allocating from the local > > node and only the local node. However, users of alloc_pages_node() may also > > specify GFP_THISNODE. In this case, only the specified node should be used. > > This patch will allocate pages only from the requested node when > > GFP_THISNODE > > is used with alloc_pages_node(). > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Detailed analysis of problem] > > Found-by: Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > <snip> > > Mel: I applied this patch [to your v8 series--the most recent, I > think?] and it does fix the problem. However, now I'm tripping over > this warning in __alloc_pages_nodemask: > > /* Specifying both __GFP_THISNODE and nodemask is stupid. Warn user */ > WARN_ON(gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE); > > for each huge page allocated. Rather slow as my console is a virtual > serial line and the warning includes the stack traceback. > > I think we want to just drop this warning, but maybe you have a tighter > condition that you want to warn about?
Sigh, sorry Mel. I see this too on my box. I purely checked the functionality and didn't think to check the logs, as the tests worked :/ I think it's quite clear that the WARN_ON() makes no sense now, since alloc_pages_node() now calls __alloc_pages_nodemask(). -Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Linux Technology Center - 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/
