Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:04:24 +0900 | From | Yasunori Goto <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: get_nid_for_pfn() returns int |
| |
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:33:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:59:19 -0800 Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:36:28PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote: > > > > get_nid_for_pfn() returns int > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > vi drivers/base/node.c +256 > > > > static int get_nid_for_pfn(unsigned long pfn) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > > > > index 43fa90b..f8f578a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/base/node.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c > > > > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk) > > > > sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->phys_index); > > > > sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; > > > > for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) { > > > > - unsigned int nid; > > > > + int nid; > > > > > > > > nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn); > > > > if (nid < 0) > > > > > > My mistake. Good catch. > > > > > > > Presumably the (nid < 0) case has never happened. > > We do know that it is happening on one system while creating > a symlink for a memory section so it should also happen on > the same system if unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() were > called to remove the same symlink. > > The test was actually added in response to a problem with an > earlier version reported by Yasunori Goto where one or more > of the leading pages of a memory section on the 2nd node of > one of his systems was uninitialized because I believe they > coincided with a memory hole.
Yes. There are some memory hole pages which are occupied by firmware in our box.
-- Yasunori Goto
| |