On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:35:53PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (5/31/12 4:25 PM), Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:09:15 -0400 >> KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c >>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c >>>> @@ -929,7 +929,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp, >>>> /* >>>> * alloc_page_vma() will drop the shared policy reference >>>> */ >>>> - return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, 0); >>>> + return alloc_page_vma(gfp,&pvma, info->node_offset<< PAGE_SHIFT ); >>> >>> 3rd argument of alloc_page_vma() is an address. This is type error. >> >> Well, it's an unsigned long... >> >> But yes, it is conceptually wrong and *looks* weird. I think we can >> address that by overcoming our peculair aversion to documenting our >> code, sigh. This? > > Sorry, no. > > addr agrument of alloc_pages_vma() have two meanings. > > 1) interleave node seed > 2) look-up key of shmem policy > > I think this patch break (2). shmem_get_policy(pol, addr) assume caller honor to > pass correct address. But the pseudo vma we generated in shmem_alloc_page the vm_ops are set to NULL. So get_vma_policy will return the policy provided by the pseudo vma and not reach the shmem_get_policy. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>