Re: [PATCH 01/14] NUMA: Generic management of nodemasks for various purposes

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:41 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> 
> > I think Andrew is referring to the "exclude selected nodes from
> > interleave policy" and "preferred policy fixups" patches.  Those are
> > related to the memoryless node patches in the sense that they touch some
> > of the same lines in mempolicy.c.  However, IMO, those patches shouldn't
> > gate the memoryless node series once the i386 issues are resolved.
> 
> Right. I think we first need to get the basic set straight. In order to be 
> complete we need to audit all uses of node_online() in the kernel and 
> think about those uses. They may require either N_NORMAL_MEMORY or 
> N_HIGH_MEMORY depending on the check being for a page cache or a kernel 
> allocation.
> 
> Then we need to test on esoteric NUMA systems like NUMAQ and embedded.

And HP's ia64 platform.

> 
> On the way we may add some additional stuff like interleave policy 
> settings, restricting node use for hugh pages and slab etc. 
> All of these are likely going to be important for asymmetric NUMA 
> configurations that the memoryless_nodes patchset is going to address.
> 

Agree.  The memoryless nodes set makes it fairly easy to add these
restrictions, I think, by using the new node_states[] support.  I just
want to keep the discussion going, as our asymmetric platform needs this
support for policies to work as desired.

Later,
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>