From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:00:47 -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: <20060809103433.99f14cb7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20060809103433.99f14cb7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pj@sgi.com, jes@sgi.com, apw@shadowen.org List-ID: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Hm, passing a nodemask as argment to alloc_page_???()is too more complicated > than GFP_THISNODE ? (it will increase # of args but...) The node is passed via alloc_pages_node() etc already. If one uses __GFP_THISNODE with alloc_pages_node() then you will get the page on the indicated node regardless of cpusets. Currently cpuset constraints may lead to allocation on a different node. If you use __GFP_THISNODE with an allocator that does not allow the specification of a node then you will get memory from the local node without regard to memory policies and cpuset constraints. In that usage scenario __GFP_THISNODE then behaves as if it would be Andy's GFP_LOCAL_NODE. -- 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