On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:04 +0530, Vijay Kumar wrote:
> Subrata Modak wrote:
> > Would you like to incorporate Andi´s review comments inthe next patch.
> > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 14:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > +void
> > > > +verify_pages_on_nodes(int *status, unsigned int num, int *nodes)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> > > > + if (status[i] != nodes[i]) {
> > > > + tst_resm(TFAIL, "page %d on node %d, "
> > > > + "expected on node %d", i,
> > > > + status[i], nodes[i]);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > The correct way to verify this would be to use get_mempolicy(...,
> > > MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR, &node) on each page and check if the node
> > > is correct.
>
> OK, I will make this change and provide an updated patch.
>
> It would also be great if someone can explain the interaction between
> mlock and move_pages. The man page
> http://linux.die.net/man/2/move_pages says that the status[] will be
> set to -EPERM if the page is mlocked. But that does not seem to
> happen, and an mlocked page gets happily moved around. So what is the
> actual expected behaviour?
I would rather loop in Michael directly here. Michael, can you please
comment on Vijayś question on move_pages man page !
Regards--
Subrata
>
> Regards,
> Vijay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
