On 03/20/19 at 10:11am, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 20.03.19 10:06, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 03/20/19 at 09:46am, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Wed 20-03-19 16:07:32, Baoquan He wrote: > >>> In function node_states_check_changes_online(), N_HIGH_MEMORY is used > >>> to substitute ZONE_HIGHMEM directly. This is not right. N_HIGH_MEMORY > >>> always has value '3' if CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y, while ZONE_HIGHMEM's value > >>> is not. It depends on whether CONFIG_ZONE_DMA/CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32 are > >>> enabled. Obviously it's not true for CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32 on 32bit system, > >>> and CONFIG_ZONE_DMA is also optional. > >>> > >>> Replace it with ZONE_HIGHMEM. > >> > >> N*MEMORY is confusing as hell but I am really curious whether we have > >> ZONE_DMA32 and ZONE_HIGMEM together? > > > > Not sure. AFAIK, on x86_32 it can't be. > > > >> > >> That being said N.*MEMORY is intended to check for nodes rather than > >> zones so the patch looks good to me but I think the above explanation is > >> misleading and will add even more mud to the picture when somebody tries > >> to understand what the heck is going on here. > > > > Yes, agree. I also thought this again after I sent out patch, feel log is > > not > > good. As you said, they are value of enum node_states and enum zone_type > > separately. > > > > How about this: > > > > ~~~ > > In function node_states_check_changes_online(), N_HIGH_MEMORY is used > > to substitute ZONE_HIGHMEM directly. This is not right. N_HIGH_MEMORY > > is to mark the memory state of node. Here zone index is checked, which > > should be compared with 'ZONE_HIGHMEM' accordingly. > > > > Replace it with ZONE_HIGHMEM. > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
Thanks, both. Will use this log and repost. Thanks Baoquan
