[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253577603.7103.174.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:00:03 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, sachinp@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix SLQB on memoryless configurations V2
On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 17:10 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> It needs signed-off from the powerpc side because it's now allocating
> more
> memory potentially (Ben?). An alternative to this patch is in V1 that
> statically declares the per-node structures but this is potentially
> sub-optimal but from a performance and memory utilisation perspective.
So if I understand correctly, we have a problem with both cpu-less and
memory-less nodes. Interesting setups :-)
I have no strong objection on the allocating of the per-cpu data for
the cpu-less nodes. However, I wonder if we should do that a bit more
nicely, maybe with some kind of "adjusted" cpu_possible_mask() (could be
something like cpu_node_valid_mask or similar) to be used by percpu.
Mostly because it would be nice to have built-in debug features in
per-cpu and in that case, it would need some way to know a valid
number from an invalid one). Either that or just keep track of the
mask of cpus that had percpu data allocated to them
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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