Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [06/44] numa: fix slab_node(MPOL_BIND) | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:54:27 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:17 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:03:42PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 16:04 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > 2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> > > > > > > commit 800416f799e0723635ac2d720ad4449917a1481c upstream. > > > > > > When a node contains only HighMem memory, slab_node(MPOL_BIND) > > > dereferences a NULL pointer. > > > > > > [ This code seems to go back all the way to commit 19770b32609b: "mm: > > > filter based on a nodemask as well as a gfp_mask". Which was back in > > > April 2008, and it got merged into 2.6.26. - Linus ] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> > > > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> > > > Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com> > > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> > > > > > > --- > > > mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > > > @@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *pol > > > (void)first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, highest_zoneidx, > > > &policy->v.nodes, > > > &zone); > > > - return zone->node; > > > + return zone ? zone->node : numa_node_id(); > > > > I think this should be numa_mem_id(). Given the documented purpose of > > slab_node(), we want a node from which page allocation is likely to > > succeed. numa_node_id() can return a memoryless node for, e.g., some > > configurations of some HP ia64 platforms. numa_mem_id() was introduced > > to return that same node from which "local" mempolicy would allocate > > pages. > > So should the upstream patch be changed? >
Yeah, probably should. I didn't see it go by.
Lee
| |