From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [1/3] Add __GFP_THISNODE to avoid fallback to other nodes and ignore cpuset/memory policy restrictions. In-Reply-To: <20060808111855.531e4e29.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <20060808104752.3e7052dd.pj@sgi.com> <20060808111855.531e4e29.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: mel@csn.ul.ie, akpm@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jes@sgi.com, apw@shadowen.org List-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Paul Jackson wrote: > Christoph wrote: > > If we would look at the users at all > > the _node allocators then we surely will find users of kmalloc_node and > > vmalloc_node etc that expect memory on exactly that node. > > Perhaps. Do you know of any specific examples needing this? Sure. Some examples For kmalloc_node() look at vmalloc.c and slab.c for starters. For vmalloc_node see drivers/oprofile/buffer.c net/ipv4/netfilter/... various places. This is going to increase with the more NUMA awareness throughout the kernel. Interesting constructs in ip_tables.c: counters = vmalloc_node(countersize, numa_node_id()); It seems what they really want is: counters = __vmalloc(countersize, __GFP_THISNODE, PAGE_KERNEL); -- 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