From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4PJhJax025512 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:43:19 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l4PJhJP5219400 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:43:19 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l4PJhIvp029390 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:43:19 -0600 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:43:18 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: numafy several functions Message-ID: <20070525194318.GD31717@us.ibm.com> References: <20070516233053.GN20535@us.ibm.com> <20070516233155.GO20535@us.ibm.com> <20070523175142.GB9301@us.ibm.com> <1179947768.5537.37.camel@localhost> <20070523192951.GE9301@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070523192951.GE9301@us.ibm.com> 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: 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 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