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 e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6NKA6AU019283 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:10:06 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l6NK8pWx410522 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:08:51 -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 l6NK8pjM031690 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:08:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:08:47 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memoryless nodes: use "node_memory_map" for cpuset mems_allowed validation Message-ID: <20070723200847.GB6036@us.ibm.com> References: <20070711182219.234782227@sgi.com> <20070711182250.005856256@sgi.com> <1184964564.9651.66.camel@localhost> <20070723190922.GA6036@us.ibm.com> <20070723122333.8b21b5fd.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070723122333.8b21b5fd.pj@sgi.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, clameter@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kxr@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: On 23.07.2007 [12:23:33 -0700], Paul Jackson wrote: > > Or perhaps we should adjust cpusets to make it so that the mems_allowed > > member only includes nodes that are set in node_states[N_MEMORY]? > > > > What do you think? Paul? > > Do you mean the "mems_alloed member" of the task struct ? I guess both that of the task_struct and that of the cpuset? I'm not sure. Could we do it for both? > That might make sense - changing task->mems_allowed to just include > nodes with memory. Yep. > Someone would have to audit the entire kernel for uses of > task->mems_allowed, to see if all uses would be ok with this change. I am starting that now -- I'm first looking at every place (in -mm, admittedly) that mems_allowed is assigned. Since now it's possible that we'll have to do extra checking if some sort of rebinding to memoryless nodes would occur (which we currently wouldn't even notice, AFAICT). > I'm on vacation this week and next, so won't be doing that work right > now. Ok, thanks for taking the time to reply! I will try and spin something up for you to review when you're back from vacation. 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