While you are at it: Could you move the code into slab_common.c so that there is only one version to maintain?

On Sep 27, 2012, at 17:04, KOSAKI Motohiro [off-list ref] wrote:

(9/27/12 2:47 AM), Lai Jiangshan wrote:

quoted

SLUB only fucus on the nodes which has normal memory, so ignore the other
node's hot-adding and hot-removing.

Aka: if some memroy of a node(which has no onlined memory) is online,
but this new memory onlined is not normal memory(HIGH memory example),
we should not allocate kmem_cache_node for SLUB.

And if the last normal memory is offlined, but the node still has memroy,
we should remove kmem_cache_node for that node.(current code delay it when
all of the memory is offlined)

so we only do something when marg->status_change_nid_normal > 0.
marg->status_change_nid is not suitable here.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <redacted>
---
mm/slub.c |    4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 2fdd96f..2d78639 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c

@@ -3577,7 +3577,7 @@ static void slab_mem_offline_callback(void *arg)
   struct memory_notify *marg = arg;
   int offline_node;

-    offline_node = marg->status_change_nid;
+    offline_node = marg->status_change_nid_normal;

   /*
    * If the node still has available memory. we need kmem_cache_node

@@ -3610,7 +3610,7 @@ static int slab_mem_going_online_callback(void *arg)
   struct kmem_cache_node *n;
   struct kmem_cache *s;
   struct memory_notify *marg = arg;
-    int nid = marg->status_change_nid;
+    int nid = marg->status_change_nid_normal;
   int ret = 0;

Looks reasonable. I think slab need similar fix too.

--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>