From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm mailing list <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kmannth@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 2019] New: Bug from the mm subsystem involving X (fwd)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:36:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64260000.1075941399@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60330000.1075939958@flay>
>> which seems to be the "PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn))" test.
>>
>> This implies that you have either:
>> - a buggy "pfn_valid()" macro (do you use CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM?)
>
> Yup.
># define pfn_valid(pfn) ((pfn) < num_physpages)
>
> Which is wrong. There's a even a comment above it that says:
>
> /*
> * pfn_valid should be made as fast as possible, and the current definition
> * is valid for machines that are NUMA, but still contiguous, which is what
> * is currently supported. A more generalised, but slower definition would
> * be something like this - mbligh:
> * ( pfn_to_pgdat(pfn) && ((pfn) < node_end_pfn(pfn_to_nid(pfn))) )
> */
>
> ;-)
>
> Which I still don't think is correct, as there's a hole in the middle of
> node 0 ... I'll make a new patch up somehow and give to Keith to test ;-)
Oh hell ... I remember what's wrong with this whole bit. pfn_valid is
used inconsistently in different places, IIRC. Linus / Andrew ... what
do you actually want it to mean? Some things seem to use it to say
"the memory here is valid accessible RAM", some things "there is a
valid struct page for this pfn". I was aiming for the latter, but a
few other arches seemed to disagree.
Could I get a ruling on this? ;-)
Thanks,
M.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm mailing list <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kmannth@us.ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 2019] New: Bug from the mm subsystem involving X (fwd)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:36:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64260000.1075941399@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60330000.1075939958@flay>
>> which seems to be the "PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn))" test.
>>
>> This implies that you have either:
>> - a buggy "pfn_valid()" macro (do you use CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM?)
>
> Yup.
># define pfn_valid(pfn) ((pfn) < num_physpages)
>
> Which is wrong. There's a even a comment above it that says:
>
> /*
> * pfn_valid should be made as fast as possible, and the current definition
> * is valid for machines that are NUMA, but still contiguous, which is what
> * is currently supported. A more generalised, but slower definition would
> * be something like this - mbligh:
> * ( pfn_to_pgdat(pfn) && ((pfn) < node_end_pfn(pfn_to_nid(pfn))) )
> */
>
> ;-)
>
> Which I still don't think is correct, as there's a hole in the middle of
> node 0 ... I'll make a new patch up somehow and give to Keith to test ;-)
Oh hell ... I remember what's wrong with this whole bit. pfn_valid is
used inconsistently in different places, IIRC. Linus / Andrew ... what
do you actually want it to mean? Some things seem to use it to say
"the memory here is valid accessible RAM", some things "there is a
valid struct page for this pfn". I was aiming for the latter, but a
few other arches seemed to disagree.
Could I get a ruling on this? ;-)
Thanks,
M.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-05 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-04 23:17 [Bugme-new] [Bug 2019] New: Bug from the mm subsystem involving X (fwd) Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-04 23:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-04 23:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-04 23:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 0:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-05 0:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-05 0:36 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2004-02-05 0:36 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-05 0:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 0:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 0:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-05 0:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-05 1:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 1:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 1:56 ` Keith Mannthey
2004-02-05 1:56 ` Keith Mannthey
2004-02-05 2:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 2:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 2:33 ` Keith Mannthey
2004-02-05 2:33 ` Keith Mannthey
2004-02-05 2:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-05 2:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-06 7:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 7:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 7:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 7:19 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 9:57 ` Dave Hansen
2004-02-06 9:57 ` Dave Hansen
2004-02-06 15:49 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 15:49 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 17:22 ` Dave Hansen
2004-02-06 17:22 ` Dave Hansen
2004-02-06 19:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 19:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-06 20:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-06 21:18 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 21:18 ` Martin J. Bligh
[not found] <51080000.1075936626@flay.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402041539470.2086@home.osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <60330000.1075939958@flay.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <64260000.1075941399@flay.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402041639420.2086@home.osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <20040204165620.3d608798.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402041719300.2086@home.osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <1075946211.13163.18962.camel@dyn318004bld.beaverton.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402041800320.2086@home.osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <98220000.1076051821@[10.10.2.4].suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <1076061476.27855.1144.camel@nighthawk.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <5450000.1076082574@[10.10.2.4].suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <1076088169.29478.2928.camel@nighthawk.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <218650000.1076097590@flay.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402061215030.30672@home.osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <220850000.1076102320@flay.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-02-07 3:54 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-07 4:49 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07 5:21 ` Andi Kleen
2004-02-07 6:37 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07 7:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=64260000.1075941399@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kmannth@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.