On Wed 19-02-14 09:49:41, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 19.02.2014 [18:32:59 +0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 19-02-14 09:16:28, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: [...] > > > I don't think this will work, because what sets N_HIGH_MEMORY (and > > > shouldn't it be N_MEMORY?) > > > > This should be the same thing AFAIU. > > I don't think they are guaranteed to be? And, in any case, semantically, > we care if a node has MEMORY, not if it has HIGH_MEMORY? I don't know. The whole MEMORY vs HIGH_MEMORY thing is really confusing. But my understanding was that HIGH_MEMORY is superset of the other one. But now that I look at the code again it seems that N_MEMORY is the right thing to use here. I will repost the patch tomorrow if other parts are good. [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>