[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:27:40 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask
v3
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Linux doesn't support 1K nodes. (and only SGI huge machine use 512 nodes)
>
I know for a fact that it does on x86 if you adjust CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT,
I've booted kernels all the way back to 2.6.18 with 1K nodes.
> At least, NODEMASK_ALLOC should make more cleaner interface. current one
> and struct nodemask_scratch are pretty ugly.
>
I agree, I haven't been a fan of nodemask_scratch because I think its use
case is pretty limited, but I do advocate using NODEMASK_ALLOC() when deep
in the stack. We've made sure that most of the mempolicy code does that
where manipulating nodemasks is common in -mm.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists