On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 15:25 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:11:43 EDT, Lee Schermerhorn said: > > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 11:49 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I have a note here that this patch "breaks slab.c". But I don't recall what > > > the problem was and I don't see a fix against this patch in your recently-sent > > > fixup series? > > > > Is that Valdis Kletnieks' issue? That was an i386 build. Happened > > because the earlier patches didn't properly default numa_mem_id() to > > numa_node_id() for the i386 build. The rework to those patches has > > fixed that. I have successfully built mmotm with the rework patches > > for i386+!NUMA. Valdis tested the series and confirmed that it fixed > > the problem. > > I thought the problem was common to both i386 and X86_64 non-NUMA (which is > where I hit the problem). In any case, builds OK for me now. The x86_64 !NUMA issue was another one I introduced in the rework -- patch 1/7 first version you tested. Fixed in the current version. Happened because x86_64 defines it's own fallback for numa_node_id(). See the description of patch 1/7. Turns out x86_64 builds fine with NUMA or !NUMA if I just remove the !NUMA numa_node_id() definition. I'll submit that patch shortly. Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>