On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:11 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, David Mackey wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> > index f15c1b2..cb0b230 100644
>> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
>> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
>> > @@ -1602,8 +1602,14 @@ static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
>> > * task can change it's policy. The system default policy requires no
>> > * such protection.
>> > */
>> > -unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy)
>> > +unsigned slab_node(void)
>> > {
>> > + struct mempolicy *policy;
>> > +
>> > + if (in_interrupt())
>> > + return numa_node_id();
>> > +
>> > + policy = current->mempolicy;
>> > if (!policy || policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
>> > return numa_node_id();
>> >
>>
>> Should probably be numa_mem_id() in both these cases for
>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, but it won't cause a problem in this form
>> either.
>>
>> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>
> Still missing from linux-next, who's going to pick this up?
I'm going to pick it up. I've been postponing merging it until dust
has settled from Christoph's "common slab" patch series.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href