[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291783026.5324.56.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 05:37:06 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [06/44] numa: fix slab_node(MPOL_BIND)
Le mardi 07 décembre 2010 à 20:17 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:03:42PM -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> >
> > I think this should be numa_mem_id(). Given the documented purpose of
> > slab_node(), we want a node from which page allocation is likely to
> > succeed. numa_node_id() can return a memoryless node for, e.g., some
> > configurations of some HP ia64 platforms. numa_mem_id() was introduced
> > to return that same node from which "local" mempolicy would allocate
> > pages.
>
> So should the upstream patch be changed?
We certainly can convert most numa_node_id() calls to numa_mem_id()
ones, but it wont be backported to 2.6.32, 2.6.34 & 2.6.27 :)
--
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