From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:19:01 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070801061901.GA10134@elte.hu> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> <20070731080114.GA12367@elte.hu> <20070801002114.GB31006@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070801002114.GB31006@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: * Nick Piggin wrote: > > _after_ the dup_task_struct(). Then change sched_fork() to return a > > CPU number - hence we dont have a separate sched_fork_suggest_cpu() > > initialization function, only one, obvious sched_fork() function. > > Agreed? > > That puts task struct, kernel stack, thread info on the wrong node. ok, i missed that - your patch looks then fine to me. Ingo -- 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