[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303421088.4025.52.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:24:48 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: make expand_downwards symmetrical to
expand_upwards
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 14:19 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > In 32 bit configurations some architectures (like x86) provide nodes
> > that have only high memory. Slab allocators only handle normal memory.
> > SLAB operates in a kind of degraded mode in that case by falling back for
> > each allocation to the nodes that have normal memory.
> >
>
> Let's do this:
>
> - parisc: James has already queued "parisc: set memory ranges in
> N_NORMAL_MEMORY when onlined" for 2.6.39, so all he needs now is
> to merge a hybrid of the Kconfig changes requiring CONFIG_NUMA for
> CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM from KOSAKI-san and myself which also fix the
> compile issues,
Not quite: if we go this route, we need to sort out our CPU scheduling
problem as well ... as I said, I don't think we've got all the necessary
numa machinery in place yet.
James
--
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