On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:20:29PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 13:18 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK thanks. So I think we have 2 problems. One with MAX_ORDER <= 9 > > that is fixed by the previous patch, and another which is probably > > due to having no memory on node 0 which I will take another look > > at now. > > > > We can merge the previous patch now, though. > > Hmm, I'll bet this BUG_ON triggers for Stephen. > > diff --git a/mm/slqb.c b/mm/slqb.c > index a651843..e4b3859 100644 > --- a/mm/slqb.c > +++ b/mm/slqb.c > @@ -1391,6 +1391,7 @@ static noinline void *__slab_alloc_page(struct kmem_cache *s, > struct kmem_cache_node *n; > > n = s->node_slab[slqb_page_to_nid(page)]; > + BUG_ON(!n); > l = &n->list; > page->list = l; Yes I'm betting it does, but I can't see why it should. CPU0 should have node_slab allocated for node 1 if node 1 has memory. And conversely, slqb_page_to_nid(page) should never evaluate to 0 if node 0 has no memory online. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
