From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] [hugetlb] Try to grow pool for MAP_SHARED mappings From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <29495f1d0707201335u5fbc9565o2a53a18e45d8b28@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070713151621.17750.58171.stgit@kernel> <20070713151717.17750.44865.stgit@kernel> <20070713130508.6f5b9bbb.pj@sgi.com> <1184360742.16671.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070713143838.02c3fa95.pj@sgi.com> <29495f1d0707171642t7c1a26d7l1c36a896e1ba3b47@mail.gmail.com> <1184769889.5899.16.camel@localhost> <29495f1d0707180817n7a5709dcr78b641a02cb18057@mail.gmail.com> <1184774524.5899.49.camel@localhost> <20070719015231.GA16796@linux-sh.org> <29495f1d0707201335u5fbc9565o2a53a18e45d8b28@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:53:58 -0400 Message-Id: <1184964838.9651.70.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nish Aravamudan Cc: Paul Mundt , Paul Jackson , Adam Litke , linux-mm@kvack.org, mel@skynet.ie, apw@shadowen.org, wli@holomorphy.com, clameter@sgi.com, kenchen@google.com List-ID: On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 13:35 -0700, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > On 7/18/07, Paul Mundt wrote: > > It would be quite nice to have some way to have nodes opt-in to the sort > > of behaviour they're willing to tolerate. Some nodes are never going to > > tolerate spreading of any sort, hugepages, and so forth. Perhaps it makes > > more sense to have some flags in the pgdat where we can more strongly > > type the sort of behaviour the node is willing to put up with (or capable > > of supporting), at least in this case the nodes that explicitly can't > > cope are factored out before we even get to cpuset constraints (plus this > > gives us a hook for setting up the interleave nodes in both the system > > init and default policies). Thoughts? > > I guess I don't understand which nodes you're talking about now? How > do you spread across any particular single node (how I read "Some > nodes are never going to tolerate spreading of any sort")? Or do you > mean that some cpusets aren't going to want to spread (interleave?). > > Oh, are you trying to say that some nodes should be dropped from > interleave masks (explicitly excluded from all possible interleave > masks)? What kind of nodes would these be? We're doing something > similar to deal with memoryless nodes, perhaps it could be > generalized? If that's what Paul means [and I think it is, based on a converstation at OLS], I have a similar requirement. I'd like to be able to specify, on the command line, at least [run time reconfig not a hard requirement] nodes to be excluded from interleave masks, including the hugetlb allocation mask [if this is different from the regular interleaving nodemask]. And, I agree, I think we can add another node_states[] entry or two to hold these nodes. I'll try to work up a patch next week if noone beats me to 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