From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:13:45 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: page migration\ Message-ID: <20050103171344.GD14886@logos.cnet> References: <41D98556.8050605@sgi.com> <1104776733.25994.11.camel@localhost> <41D99743.5000601@sgi.com> <20050103162406.GB14886@logos.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050103162406.GB14886@logos.cnet> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ray Bryant Cc: Dave Hansen , Hirokazu Takahashi , linux-mm List-ID: On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:24:06PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:04:35PM -0600, Ray Bryant wrote: > > Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > > > >>I'd like to see this order of patches become the new order for the memory > > >>hotplug patch. That way, I won't have to pull the migration patches out > > >>of the hotplug patch every time a new one comes out (I need the migration > > >>code, but not the hotplug code for a project I am working on.) > > >> > > >>Do you suppose this can be done??? > > > > > > > > >Absolutely. I was simply working them in the order that they were > > >implemented. But, if we want the migration stuff merged first, I have > > >absolutely no problem with putting it first in the patch set. > > > > > >Next time I publish a tree, I'll see what I can do about producing > > >similar rollups to what you have, with migration broken out from > > >hotplug. > > > > > > > Cool. Let me know if I can help at all with that. > > > > Once we get that done I'd like to pursure getting the migration patches > > proposed for -mm and then mainline. Does that make sense? > > > > (perhaps it will make the hotplug patch easier to accept if we can get the > > memory migration stuff in first). > > > > Of course, the "standalone" memory migration stuff makes most sense on > > NUMA, and there is some minor interface changes there to support that (i. > > e. consider: > > > > migrate_onepage(page); > > > > vs > > > > migrate_onepage_node(page, node); > > > > what the latter does is to call alloc_pages_node() instead of > > page_cache_alloc() to get the new page.) Memory migration makes sense for defragmentation too. I think we enough arguments for merging the migration code first, as you suggest. Its also easier to merge part-by-part than everything in one bunch. Yes? -- 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: aart@kvack.org