linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if task is already on a correct node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203221440380.25011@router.home>
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:41:05 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
cc:	lwoodman@...hat.com, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <mkosaki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if
 task is already on a correct node

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:

> > So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4,
> > 4 to 5 and 5 to 6
> > to keep the node ordering the same?
>
> Would it make more sense to do 5->6, 4->5, 3->4?  If we move stuff
> from 3 to 4 before clearing the old 4 stuff out, it might get crowded?

Right. I thought Paul did take care of that way back when it was written?


--
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/