[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060913235909.GC4359@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:59:09 -0700
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alok Kataria <alok.kataria@...softinc.com>,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
"Benzi Galili (Benzi@...leMP.com)" <benzi@...lemp.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] slab: Do not use mempolicy for kmalloc_node
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:48:58PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
>
> The two cases were your patch still applied memory policies were:
>
> 1. nodeid = -1. This is one particular case that we wanted to fix because
> it means use numa_node_id().
OK, I did not realise nodeid = -1 _should_ imply current node. Not using
mempolicy makes sense then.
>
> 2. The case where the nodelist does not yet exist.
>
> AFAIK this situation only occurs on boot strap when we are actually
> attempting to allocate from a different node than what we are running on.
> Falling back to the local node is the right thing to do because we have
> that already working. A process that is running on a node must always have
> the nodelists for all caches allocated. The cpuup callbacks take care of that.
>
> kmalloc_node needs work like page_alloc_node. page_alloc_node() never
> consults memory policies and thus one would not expect kmalloc_node to do
> so either.
OK.
-
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