2012/09/15 5:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:00:09 +0900
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -187,9 +184,10 @@ void register_page_bootmem_info_node(struct pglist_data *pgdat)
end_pfn = pfn + pgdat->node_spanned_pages;
/* register_section info */
- for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION)
- register_page_bootmem_info_section(pfn);
-
+ for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+ if (pfn_valid(pfn) && (pfn_to_nid(pfn) == node))
I cannot judge whether your configuration is correct or not.
Thus if it is correct, I want a comment of why the node check is
needed. In usual configuration, a node does not span the other one.
So it is natural that "pfn_to_nid(pfn) is same as "pgdat->node_id".
Thus we may remove the node check in the future.
yup. How does this look?
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c~memory-hotplug-fix-a-double-register-section-info-bug-fix
+++ a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -185,6 +185,12 @@ void register_page_bootmem_info_node(str
/* register_section info */
for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+ /*
+ * Some platforms can assign the same pfn to multiple nodes - on
+ * node0 as well as nodeN. To avoid registering a pfn against
+ * multiple nodes we check that this pfn does not already
+ * reside in some other node.
+ */
if (pfn_valid(pfn) && (pfn_to_nid(pfn) == node))
register_page_bootmem_info_section(pfn);
}
_
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>