[PATCH 1/3] hugetlb: remove unnecessary nid initialization

[PATCH 1/3] hugetlb: remove unnecessary nid initialization

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

nid is initialized to numa_node_id() but will either be overwritten in
the loop or not used in the conditional. So remove the initialization.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index eb7180d..abcd9a9 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static void enqueue_huge_page(struct page *page)
 static struct page *dequeue_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 				unsigned long address)
 {
-	int nid = numa_node_id();
+	int nid;
 	struct page *page = NULL;
 	struct zonelist *zonelist = huge_zonelist(vma, address);
 	struct zone **z;

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

[RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Add node-parameterized helpers for dequeue_huge_page,
alloc_fresh_huge_page and try_to_free_low. Also have
update_and_free_page() take a nid parameter. This is necessary to add a
per-node sysfs attribute to specify the number of hugepages on that
node.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index abcd9a9..51f412e 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -63,11 +63,22 @@ static void enqueue_huge_page(struct page *page)
 	free_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
 }
 
+static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_node(int nid)
+{
+	struct page *page;
+
+	page = list_entry(hugepage_freelists[nid].next,
+					  struct page, lru);
+	list_del(&page->lru);
+	free_huge_pages--;
+	free_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
+	return page;
+}
+
 static struct page *dequeue_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 				unsigned long address)
 {
 	int nid;
-	struct page *page = NULL;
 	struct zonelist *zonelist = huge_zonelist(vma, address);
 	struct zone **z;
 
@@ -78,14 +89,9 @@ static struct page *dequeue_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 			break;
 	}
 
-	if (*z) {
-		page = list_entry(hugepage_freelists[nid].next,
-				  struct page, lru);
-		list_del(&page->lru);
-		free_huge_pages--;
-		free_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
-	}
-	return page;
+	if (*z)
+		return dequeue_huge_page_node(nid);
+	return NULL;
 }
 
 static void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
@@ -99,24 +105,40 @@ static void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
 	spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
 }
 
-static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
+static struct page *alloc_fresh_huge_page_node(int nid)
 {
-	static int nid = 0;
 	struct page *page;
-	page = alloc_pages_node(nid, GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_NOWARN,
-					HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
-	nid = next_node(nid, node_online_map);
-	if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
-		nid = first_node(node_online_map);
+
+	page = alloc_pages_node(nid,
+			GFP_HIGHUSER|__GFP_COMP|GFP_THISNODE,
+			HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER);
 	if (page) {
 		set_compound_page_dtor(page, free_huge_page);
 		spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
 		nr_huge_pages++;
-		nr_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]++;
+		nr_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
 		spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
 		put_page(page); /* free it into the hugepage allocator */
-		return 1;
 	}
+
+	return page;
+}
+
+static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
+{
+	static int nid = 0;
+	struct page *page;
+	int start_nid = nid;
+
+	do {
+		page = alloc_fresh_huge_page_node(nid);
+
+		nid = next_node(nid, node_online_map);
+		if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
+			nid = first_node(node_online_map);
+	} while (!page && nid != start_nid);
+	if (page)
+		return 1;
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -186,11 +208,11 @@ static unsigned int cpuset_mems_nr(unsigned int *array)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
-static void update_and_free_page(struct page *page)
+static void update_and_free_page(int nid, struct page *page)
 {
 	int i;
 	nr_huge_pages--;
-	nr_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]--;
+	nr_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
 	for (i = 0; i < (HPAGE_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE); i++) {
 		page[i].flags &= ~(1 << PG_locked | 1 << PG_error | 1 << PG_referenced |
 				1 << PG_dirty | 1 << PG_active | 1 << PG_reserved |
@@ -202,25 +224,37 @@ static void update_and_free_page(struct page *page)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
+static void try_to_free_low_node(int nid, unsigned long count)
+{
+	struct page *page, *next;
+
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next,
+				&hugepage_freelists[nid], lru) {
+		if (PageHighMem(page))
+			continue;
+		list_del(&page->lru);
+		update_and_free_page(nid, page);
+		free_huge_pages--;
+		free_huge_pages_node[nid]--;
+		if (count >= nr_huge_pages_node[nid])
+			return;
+	}
+}
+
 static void try_to_free_low(unsigned long count)
 {
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; ++i) {
-		struct page *page, *next;
-		list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, &hugepage_freelists[i], lru) {
-			if (PageHighMem(page))
-				continue;
-			list_del(&page->lru);
-			update_and_free_page(page);
-			free_huge_pages--;
-			free_huge_pages_node[page_to_nid(page)]--;
-			if (count >= nr_huge_pages)
-				return;
-		}
+		try_to_free_low_node(i, count);
+		if (count >= nr_huge_pages)
+			break;
 	}
 }
 #else
+static inline void try_to_free_low_node(int nid, unsigned long count)
+{
+}
 static inline void try_to_free_low(unsigned long count)
 {
 }
@@ -242,7 +276,7 @@ static unsigned long set_max_huge_pages(unsigned long count)
 		struct page *page = dequeue_huge_page(NULL, 0);
 		if (!page)
 			break;
-		update_and_free_page(page);
+		update_and_free_page(page_to_nid(page), page);
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
 	return nr_huge_pages;

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

[RFC][PATCH 3/3] hugetlb: add per-node nr_hugepages sysfs attribute

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Allow specifying the number of hugepages to allocate on a particular
node. Our current global sysctl will try its best to put hugepages
equally on each node, but htat may not always be desired. This allows
the admin to control the layout of hugepage allocation at a finer level
(while not breaking the existing interface).

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

---
I would have liked to have avoided the #ifdef's in node.c, but I
couldn't figure out a simple way to conditionalize the
create_file/remove_file calls.

diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index cae346e..42c17fc 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ static ssize_t node_read_distance(struct sys_device * dev, char * buf)
 }
 static SYSDEV_ATTR(distance, S_IRUGO, node_read_distance, NULL);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
+static SYSDEV_ATTR(nr_hugepages, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
+				hugetlb_read_nr_hugepages_node,
+				hugetlb_write_nr_hugepages_node);
+#endif
 
 /*
  * register_node - Setup a sysfs device for a node.
@@ -151,6 +156,9 @@ int register_node(struct node *node, int num, struct node *parent)
 		sysdev_create_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_meminfo);
 		sysdev_create_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_numastat);
 		sysdev_create_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_distance);
+#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
+		sysdev_create_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_nr_hugepages);
+#endif
 	}
 	return error;
 }
@@ -168,7 +176,9 @@ void unregister_node(struct node *node)
 	sysdev_remove_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_meminfo);
 	sysdev_remove_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_numastat);
 	sysdev_remove_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_distance);
+#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
+	sysdev_remove_file(&node->sysdev, &attr_nr_hugepages);
+#endif

 	sysdev_unregister(&node->sysdev);
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
index b4570b6..cd21086 100644
--- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/mempolicy.h>
 #include <linux/shm.h>
+#include <linux/sysdev.h>
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 
 struct ctl_table;
@@ -22,6 +23,8 @@ void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct vm_area_struct *, unsigned long, unsigned lon
 int hugetlb_prefault(struct address_space *, struct vm_area_struct *);
 int hugetlb_report_meminfo(char *);
 int hugetlb_report_node_meminfo(int, char *);
+ssize_t hugetlb_read_nr_hugepages_node(struct sys_device *, char *);
+ssize_t hugetlb_write_nr_hugepages_node(struct sys_device *, const char *, size_t);
 unsigned long hugetlb_total_pages(void);
 int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 			unsigned long address, int write_access);
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 51f412e..9e79624 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -207,7 +207,6 @@ static unsigned int cpuset_mems_nr(unsigned int *array)
 	return nr;
 }
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
 static void update_and_free_page(int nid, struct page *page)
 {
 	int i;
@@ -260,6 +259,7 @@ static inline void try_to_free_low(unsigned long count)
 }
 #endif
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
 static unsigned long set_max_huge_pages(unsigned long count)
 {
 	while (count > nr_huge_pages) {
@@ -314,6 +314,50 @@ int hugetlb_report_node_meminfo(int nid, char *buf)
 		nid, free_huge_pages_node[nid]);
 }
 
+ssize_t hugetlb_read_nr_hugepages_node(struct sys_device *dev,
+							char *buf)
+{
+	return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", nr_huge_pages_node[dev->id]);
+}
+
+ssize_t hugetlb_write_nr_hugepages_node(struct sys_device *dev,
+					const char *buf, size_t count)
+{
+	int nid = dev->id;
+	unsigned long target;
+	unsigned long free_on_other_nodes;
+	unsigned long nr_huge_pages_req = simple_strtoul(buf, NULL, 10);
+
+	while (nr_huge_pages_req > nr_huge_pages_node[nid]) {
+		if (!alloc_fresh_huge_page_node(nid))
+			return count;
+	}
+	if (nr_huge_pages_req >= nr_huge_pages_node[nid])
+		return count;
+
+	/* need to ensure that our counts are accurate */
+	spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
+	free_on_other_nodes = free_huge_pages - free_huge_pages_node[nid];
+	if (free_on_other_nodes >= resv_huge_pages) {
+		/* other nodes can satisfy reserve */
+		target = nr_huge_pages_req;
+	} else {
+		/* this node needs some free to satisfy reserve */
+		target = max((resv_huge_pages - free_on_other_nodes),
+						nr_huge_pages_req);
+	}
+	try_to_free_low_node(nid, target);
+	while (target < nr_huge_pages_node[nid]) {
+		struct page *page = dequeue_huge_page_node(nid);
+		if (!page)
+			break;
+		update_and_free_page(nid, page);
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
+
+	return count;
+}
+
 /* Return the number pages of memory we physically have, in PAGE_SIZE units. */
 unsigned long hugetlb_total_pages(void)
 {
-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 16.05.2007 [16:31:55 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Add node-parameterized helpers for dequeue_huge_page,
> alloc_fresh_huge_page and try_to_free_low. Also have
> update_and_free_page() take a nid parameter. This is necessary to add a
> per-node sysfs attribute to specify the number of hugepages on that
> node.

I saw that 1/3 was picked up by Andrew, but have not got any responses
to the other two (I know Adam is out of town...).

Thoughts, comments? Bad idea, good idea?

I found it pretty handy to specify the exact layout of hugepages on each
node.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Lee Schermerhorn]

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:51 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 16.05.2007 [16:31:55 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Add node-parameterized helpers for dequeue_huge_page,
> > alloc_fresh_huge_page and try_to_free_low. Also have
> > update_and_free_page() take a nid parameter. This is necessary to add a
> > per-node sysfs attribute to specify the number of hugepages on that
> > node.
> 
> I saw that 1/3 was picked up by Andrew, but have not got any responses
> to the other two (I know Adam is out of town...).

Nish:  I haven't had a chance to test these patches.  Other alligators
in the swamp right now.

> 
> Thoughts, comments? Bad idea, good idea?
> 
> I found it pretty handy to specify the exact layout of hugepages on each
> node.

Could be useful for system with unequal memory per node, or where you
know you want more huge pages on a given node.  I recall that Tru64 Unix
used to support something similar:  most vm tunables that involved sizes
or percentages of memory, such as page cache limits, locked memory
limits, reserved huge pages, ..., could be specified as a single value
that was distributed across nodes [backwards compatibility] or as list
of per node values.  However, I don't recall if marketing/customers
asked for this or if it was a case of gratuitous design excess ;-).

I see that we'll need to reconcile the modified alloc_fresh_huge_page
with the patch to skip unpopulated nodes when/if they collide in -mm.

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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 23.05.2007 [15:16:07 -0400], Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:51 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.05.2007 [16:31:55 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Add node-parameterized helpers for dequeue_huge_page,
> > > alloc_fresh_huge_page and try_to_free_low. Also have
> > > update_and_free_page() take a nid parameter. This is necessary to add a
> > > per-node sysfs attribute to specify the number of hugepages on that
> > > node.
> > 
> > I saw that 1/3 was picked up by Andrew, but have not got any responses
> > to the other two (I know Adam is out of town...).
> 
> Nish:  I haven't had a chance to test these patches.  Other alligators
> in the swamp right now.

No problem.

> > Thoughts, comments? Bad idea, good idea?
> > 
> > I found it pretty handy to specify the exact layout of hugepages on each
> > node.
> 
> Could be useful for system with unequal memory per node, or where you
> know you want more huge pages on a given node.  I recall that Tru64 Unix
> used to support something similar:  most vm tunables that involved sizes
> or percentages of memory, such as page cache limits, locked memory
> limits, reserved huge pages, ..., could be specified as a single value
> that was distributed across nodes [backwards compatibility] or as list
> of per node values.  However, I don't recall if marketing/customers
> asked for this or if it was a case of gratuitous design excess ;-).

Yep, exactly the kind of use cases I was thinking of.

> I see that we'll need to reconcile the modified alloc_fresh_huge_page
> with the patch to skip unpopulated nodes when/if they collide in -mm.

Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Andrew,

On 23.05.2007 [12:29:51 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 23.05.2007 [15:16:07 -0400], Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:51 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 16.05.2007 [16:31:55 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > Add node-parameterized helpers for dequeue_huge_page,
> > > > alloc_fresh_huge_page and try_to_free_low. Also have
> > > > update_and_free_page() take a nid parameter. This is necessary to add a
> > > > per-node sysfs attribute to specify the number of hugepages on that
> > > > node.
> > > 
> > > I saw that 1/3 was picked up by Andrew, but have not got any
> > > responses to the other two (I know Adam is out of town...).
> > 
> > Nish:  I haven't had a chance to test these patches.  Other
> > alligators in the swamp right now.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> > > Thoughts, comments? Bad idea, good idea?
> > > 
> > > I found it pretty handy to specify the exact layout of hugepages
> > > on each node.
> > 
> > Could be useful for system with unequal memory per node, or where
> > you know you want more huge pages on a given node.  I recall that
> > Tru64 Unix used to support something similar:  most vm tunables that
> > involved sizes or percentages of memory, such as page cache limits,
> > locked memory limits, reserved huge pages, ..., could be specified
> > as a single value that was distributed across nodes [backwards
> > compatibility] or as list of per node values.  However, I don't
> > recall if marketing/customers asked for this or if it was a case of
> > gratuitous design excess ;-).
> 
> Yep, exactly the kind of use cases I was thinking of.
> 
> > I see that we'll need to reconcile the modified
> > alloc_fresh_huge_page with the patch to skip unpopulated nodes
> > when/if they collide in -mm.
> 
> Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
> I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.

Would you like me to rebase onto 2.6.22-rc2-mm1? I think this is a very
useful feature for NUMA systems that may have an unequal distribution of
memory and don't like the hugepage allocations provided by the global
sysctl.

If I recall right, the collisions with Lee's hugetlb.c changes were
pretty small, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Lee Schermerhorn]

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 12:43 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
<snip>
> > 
> > Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
> > I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.
> 
> Would you like me to rebase onto 2.6.22-rc2-mm1? I think this is a very
> useful feature for NUMA systems that may have an unequal distribution of
> memory and don't like the hugepage allocations provided by the global
> sysctl.
> 
> If I recall right, the collisions with Lee's hugetlb.c changes were
> pretty small, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all.

Nish:

Unless I missed your post, I think Andrew is waiting to hear from you on
the results of your testing of the 22-rc2 based v4 patch before merging
the huge page allocation fix.

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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 25.05.2007 [16:55:59 -0400], Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 12:43 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Andrew,
> > 
> <snip>
> > > 
> > > Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
> > > I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.
> > 
> > Would you like me to rebase onto 2.6.22-rc2-mm1? I think this is a very
> > useful feature for NUMA systems that may have an unequal distribution of
> > memory and don't like the hugepage allocations provided by the global
> > sysctl.
> > 
> > If I recall right, the collisions with Lee's hugetlb.c changes were
> > pretty small, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all.
> 
> Nish:
> 
> Unless I missed your post, I think Andrew is waiting to hear from you
> on the results of your testing of the 22-rc2 based v4 patch before
> merging the huge page allocation fix.

Err, right.

Preliminary results:

x86 2-node success
x86_64 4-node success

ppc64 4-node fails with mainline, still investigating
x86 1-node fails with mainline, believe it is machine setup error,
	trying with another one

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:55:59 -0400 Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 12:43 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Andrew,
> > 
> <snip>
> > > 
> > > Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
> > > I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.
> > 
> > Would you like me to rebase onto 2.6.22-rc2-mm1? I think this is a very
> > useful feature for NUMA systems that may have an unequal distribution of
> > memory and don't like the hugepage allocations provided by the global
> > sysctl.
> > 
> > If I recall right, the collisions with Lee's hugetlb.c changes were
> > pretty small, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all.
> 
> Nish:
> 
> Unless I missed your post, I think Andrew is waiting to hear from you on
> the results of your testing of the 22-rc2 based v4 patch before merging
> the huge page allocation fix.
> 

I am in my common state of lost-the-plot on this patchset.

Once all the issues are believed to be settled, please send fresh shiny new
patches against latest -linus or, if there is colliding stuff in -mm,
against latest -mm.

--
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>

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions

[Lee Schermerhorn]

On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 14:39 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:55:59 -0400 Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 12:43 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Andrew,
> > > 
> > <snip>
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, if folks like the interface and are satisfied with it working,
> > > > I'll rebase onto -mm for Andrew's sanity.
> > > 
> > > Would you like me to rebase onto 2.6.22-rc2-mm1? I think this is a very
> > > useful feature for NUMA systems that may have an unequal distribution of
> > > memory and don't like the hugepage allocations provided by the global
> > > sysctl.
> > > 
> > > If I recall right, the collisions with Lee's hugetlb.c changes were
> > > pretty small, so it shouldn't be any trouble at all.
> > 
> > Nish:
> > 
> > Unless I missed your post, I think Andrew is waiting to hear from you on
> > the results of your testing of the 22-rc2 based v4 patch before merging
> > the huge page allocation fix.
> > 
> 
> I am in my common state of lost-the-plot on this patchset.

I was referring to the patch that Anton Blanchard started, and I
reworked that distributes huge pages evenly over populated nodes in the
presence of nodes with no memory in the zone from which HUGEPAGES are
allocated.  You had asked [off list, last week, 17may] whether we're
still waiting for test results, to which I replied, "yes".

Later, Nish asked me for a version of the patch rebased against 22-rc2
because he was having difficulty building 22-rc*-mm* on his platform.

In this exchange, Nish is referring to his patch to allow explicit, per
node, specification of nr_hugepages via a sysfs attribute.

> 
> Once all the issues are believed to be settled, please send fresh shiny new
> patches against latest -linus or, if there is colliding stuff in -mm,
> against latest -mm.

Will do.

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>