From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] NUMA: Generic management of nodemasks for various purposes From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: References: <20070727194316.18614.36380.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070727194322.18614.68855.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070731192241.380e93a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731200522.c19b3b95.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731203203.2691ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1185977011.5059.36.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:54:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1185990883.5059.54.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org