On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > I suspect the WARN_ON() is bogus although I really don't know that part
> > > of the code all too well. Mel?
> > >
> >
> > The warn-on is valid. A situation should not exist that allows both flags
> > to
> > be set. I suspect if remove-set_migrateflags.patch was reverted from -mm
> > the warning would not trigger. Christoph, would it be reasonable to always
> > clear __GFP_MOVABLE when __GFP_RECLAIMABLE is set for SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT.
Slab allocations should never be passed these flags since the slabs do
their own thing there.
The following patch would clear these in slub:
---
mm/slub.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1/mm/slub.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1.orig/mm/slub.c 2008-03-04 11:53:47.600342756 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc3-mm1/mm/slub.c 2008-03-04 11:55:40.153855150 -0800
@@ -1033,8 +1033,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct
struct page *page;
int pages = 1 << s->order;
+ flags &= ~GFP_MOVABLE_MASK;
flags |= s->allocflags;
-
page = alloc_slab_page(flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY,
node, s->order);
if (unlikely(!page)) {
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
