[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150124071623.GA17705@phnom.home.cmpxchg.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:16:23 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, mhocko@...e.cz
Subject: Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol:
remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:09:20PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't that have unintended consequences ? So far
> > rb tree nodes are allocated even if a node not online;
> > the above would change that. Are you saying it is
> > unnecessary to initialize rb tree nodes if the node
> > is not online ?
>
> It is not advisable to allocate since an offline node means that the
> structure cannot be allocated on the node where it would be most
> beneficial. Typically subsystems allocate the per node data structures
> when the node is brought online.
I would generally agree, but this code, which implements a userspace
interface, is already grotesquely inefficient and heavyhanded. It's
also superseded in the next release, so we can just keep this simple
at this point.
--
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