From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:26:54 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated Message-Id: <20061205102654.19165150.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20061130170746.GA11363@skynet.ie> <20061130173129.4ebccaa2.akpm@osdl.org> <20061201110103.08d0cf3d.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204140747.GA21662@skynet.ie> <20061204113051.4e90b249.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204143435.6ab587db.akpm@osdl.org> <20061205101629.5cb78828.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , apw@shadowen.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:05:16 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > That is one possibility. There are people working on fake nodes for containers > > at the moment. If that pans out, the infrastructure would be available to > > create one node per DIMM. > > Right that is a hack in use for one project. Other projects can use it too. It has the distinct advantage that it works with today's VM. > We would be adding huge > amounts of VM overhead if we do a node per DIMM. No we wouldn't. > So a desktop system with two dimms is to be treated like a NUMA > system? Could do that. Or make them separate zones. > Or how else do we deal with the multitude of load balancing > situations that the additional nodes will generate? No such problems are known. -- 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