From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make dynamic/run-time configuration of zonelist order configurable From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20070530111212.095350d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1180468121.5067.64.camel@localhost> <20070530111212.095350d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:42:22 -0400 Message-Id: <1180554142.5850.90.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Nishanth Aravamudan List-ID: On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:12 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:48:41 -0400 > Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > [PATCH] Make dynamic/run-time configuration of zonelist order configurable > > > > Against 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 with the huge page allocation fix applied: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=117935390224779&w=4 > > > > I wasn't cc'ed on "[PATCH/RFC] Fix hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes > - V4" so I didn't apply it hence cannot apply this. My send folder should you copied on the patch referenced by the link above, but that doesn't mean you got it... As far as the status of that patch, I'm still unclear on Nish's testing. He ack'd for x86_64 where he had a problem that V4 was supposed to fix, but couldn't test on ppc. So, I didn't think he's ready for it to go in. > > Plus I'd prefer not to, really. This patch should be folded into > change-zonelist-order-zonelist-order-selection-logic.patch somehow, but I > cannot do that if it is dependent upon the unrelated "[PATCH/RFC] Fix > hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes - V4". Well, I really didn't expect this one to go right in. We needed to hear from Kame first. Probably should have added an 'RFC'... > > Better would be to raise a patch relative to the change-zonelist-order-* > patches, please. Then we can take a look at the hugetlb fix independently. zonelist order stuff is already in 22-rc2-mm and I considered holding off on this patch until Nish ack'd or nack'd the hugetlb fix. Sorry for the confusion. But, before I go and rework it against the current mm tree and then rebase the hugetlb fix on that, could you offer an opinion either way, whether it's worth the effort and a new Kconfig option to attempt to give back this amount init code/data? I recall you making noise about the zonelist order patch being "a lot of code" when Kame first posted it. Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org