[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236531664.4192.389.camel@calx>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:01:04 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] cpusets: add memory_slab_hardwall flag
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 09:27 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> Adds a per-cpuset `memory_slab_hardwall' flag.
>
> The slab allocator interface for determining whether an object is allowed
> is
>
> int current_cpuset_object_allowed(int node, gfp_t flags)
>
> This returns non-zero when the object is allowed, either because
> current's cpuset does not have memory_slab_hardwall enabled or because
> it allows allocation on the node. Otherwise, it returns zero.
>
> This interface is lockless because a task's cpuset can always be safely
> dereferenced atomically.
>
> For slab, if the physical node id of the cpu cache is not from an
> allowable node, the allocation will fail. If an allocation is targeted
> for a node that is not allowed, we allocate from an appropriate one
> instead of failing.
>
> For slob, if the page from the slob list is not from an allowable node,
> we continue to scan for an appropriate slab. If none can be used, a new
> slab is allocated.
Looks fine to me, if a little expensive. We'll be needing SLQB support
though.
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
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