[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29495f1d0706261217y3ba48400q7c64865082ba13df@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0700
From: "Nish Aravamudan" <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....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 6/26/07, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> 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 ;-).
heh, true true.
Hrm, I guess the simplest looking solution is rarely the best. Could
we add more smarts in alloc_pages_current() to make GFP_THISNODE be
equivalent to bind_zonelist(thisnode_only_mask)? I'll keep thinking,
maybe I'll come up with something.
Thanks,
Nish
-
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