From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5C1flKe002291 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:41:47 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5C1fjHi465124 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:41:47 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5C1fiNU020368 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:41:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:41:42 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2][RFC] Fix INTERLEAVE with memoryless nodes Message-ID: <20070612014142.GC3798@us.ibm.com> References: <20070611202728.GD9920@us.ibm.com> <20070611221036.GA14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611225213.GB14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611230829.GC14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612001436.GI14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611175700.e5268342.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070611175700.e5268342.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, anton@samba.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 11.06.2007 [17:57:00 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:14:36 -0700 Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > Christoph said: > > "This does not work for the address based interleaving for anonymous > > vmas. I am not sure what to do there. We could change the calculation > > of the node to be based only on nodes with memory and then skip the > > memoryless ones. I have only added a comment to describe its brokennes > > for now." > > > > I have copied his draft's comment. > > > > Change alloc_pages_node() to fail __GFP_THISNODE allocations if the node > > is not populated. > > > > Again, Christoph said: > > "This will fix the alloc_pages_node case but not the alloc_pages() case. > > In the alloc_pages() case we do not specify a node. Implicitly it is > > understood that we (in the case of no memory policy / cpuset options) > > allocate from the nearest node. So it may be argued there that the > > GFP_THISNODE behavior of taking the first node from the zonelist is > > okay." > > > > Christoph was also worried about the performance impact on these paths, > > as am I. > > > > Finally, as he suggested, uninline alloc_pages_node() and move it to > > mempolicy.c. > > > > All confused. > I have no node_populated_mask. > > The below improves the situation, but I wonder about, ahem, the maturity of > this code. Sorry, Andrew :( I didn't expect you to pull all these patche so quickly. No one gave me much feedback the last few times I posted the series, so I wasn't expecting any this time either...that's what I get for pique-ing Christoph's interest :) We went through several revisions today alone... If you would prefer dropping the series, I will clean them up and get them ready for you tomorrow. The previous series were well-tested, but this one was more of a RFD/RFC with an emphasis on the D/C. Sorry for that and not making it more explicit. How would you like me to proceed? 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