From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4NJTqlJ027111 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 15:29:52 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l4NJTqBQ557122 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 15:29:52 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l4NJTpi1003425 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 15:29:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:29:51 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions Message-ID: <20070523192951.GE9301@us.ibm.com> References: <20070516233053.GN20535@us.ibm.com> <20070516233155.GO20535@us.ibm.com> <20070523175142.GB9301@us.ibm.com> <1179947768.5537.37.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1179947768.5537.37.camel@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: wli@holomorphy.com, anton@samba.org, clameter@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, agl@us.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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 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: email@kvack.org