[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706261209170.19878@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > No. alloc_pages follows memory policy. alloc_pages_node does not. One of
> > the reasons that I want a new memory policy layer are these kinds of
> > strange uses.
>
> What would break by changing, in alloc_pages_node()
>
> if (nid < 0)
> nid = numa_node_id();
>
> to
>
> if (nid < 0)
> return alloc_pages_current(gfp_mask, order);
>
> beyond needing to make alloc_pages_current() defined if !NUMA too.
It would make alloc_pages_node obey memory policies instead of only
following cpuset constraints. An a memory policy may redirect the
allocation from the local node ;-).
-
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