From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B181F6B0044 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nBB0gfmo021758 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:42:41 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC68845DE52 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:42:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C3045DE51 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:42:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C5B1DB8044 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:42:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA3C1DB8041 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:42:38 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:39:38 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC mm][PATCH 4/5] add a lowmem check function Message-Id: <20091211093938.70214f9c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20091210163115.463d96a3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091210170036.dde2c147.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , minchan.kim@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu List-ID: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:59:11 -0600 (CST) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > This patch adds an integer lowmem_zone, which is initialized to -1. > > If zone_idx(zone) <= lowmem_zone, the zone is lowmem. > > There is already a policy_zone in mempolicy.h. lowmem is if the zone > number is lower than policy_zone. Can we avoid adding another zone > limiter? > My previous version (one month ago) does that. In this set, I tried to use unified approach for all CONFIG_NUMA/HIGHMEM/flat ones. Hmm, How about adding following kind of patch after this #define policy_zone (lowmem_zone + 1) and remove policy_zone ? I think the name of "policy_zone" implies "this is for mempolicy, NUMA" and don't think good name for generic use. Thanks, -Kame -- 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