Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759892Ab0HEHkp (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 03:40:45 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:6969 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759674Ab0HEHkn (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 03:40:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=Eu+TKIRSrJyoFZaCsDizau3NooVCBOdbyNbAJJe0KpMbWsA2URtnxy+qDuZWReyUQ 4zrcaRvu7bXWqlUGPnKLQ== Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Christoph Lameter cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [S+Q3 03/23] slub: Use a constant for a unspecified node. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100804024514.139976032@linux.com> <20100804024525.562559967@linux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1407 Lines: 35 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > static struct page *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node) > > > { > > > struct page *page; > > > - int searchnode = (node == -1) ? numa_node_id() : node; > > > + int searchnode = (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_node_id() : node; > > > > > > page = get_partial_node(get_node(s, searchnode)); > > > if (page || (flags & __GFP_THISNODE) || node != -1) > > > > This has a merge conflict with 2.6.35 since it has this: > > > > page = get_partial_node(get_node(s, searchnode)); > > if (page || (flags & __GFP_THISNODE)) > > return page; > > > > return get_any_partial(s, flags); > > > > so what happened to the dropped check for returning get_any_partial() when > > node != -1? I added the check for benchmarking. > > Strange no merge conflict here. Are you sure you use upstream? > Yes, 2.6.35 does not have the node != -1 check and Linus hasn't pulled slub/fixes from Pekka's tree yet. Even when he does, "slub numa: Fix rare allocation from unexpected node" removes the __GFP_THISNODE check before adding node != -1, so this definitely doesn't apply to anybody else's tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/