From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:15:12 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH v6][RFC] Fix hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes Message-ID: <20070612051512.GC11773@holomorphy.com> References: <20070611221036.GA14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611225213.GB14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611230829.GC14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611231008.GD14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612001542.GJ14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612034407.GB11773@holomorphy.com> <20070612050910.GU3798@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070612050910.GU3798@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Christoph Lameter , lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, anton@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:09:10PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Well, (presuming I understood everything you wrote :), don't we need the > static 'affair' to guarantee the initial allocations are approximately > round-robin? Or, if we aren't going to make that guarantee, than we > should only change that once my sysfs allocator (or its equivalent) is > available? > Just trying to get a handle on what you're suggesting without any > historical context. For initially filling the pool one can just loop over nid's modulo the number of populated nodes and pass down a stack-allocated variable. -- wli -- 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