From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:12:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gfp.h: GFP_THISNODE can go to other nodes if some are unpopulated In-Reply-To: <466D44C6.6080105@shadowen.org> Message-ID: References: <20070607150425.GA15776@us.ibm.com> <20070607220149.GC15776@us.ibm.com> <466D44C6.6080105@shadowen.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andy Whitcroft Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, anton@samba.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Its strange behaviour for sure. The users of this in the slab are not > getting what they expected. So its possible they would also want > something similar to what you are proposing for hugetlbfs. I also > wonder if the name should be changed to GFP_NEARTHISNODE or something. Well maybe we better fix this? I put an effort into using only cachelines already used for GFP_THISNODE since this is in a very performance critical path but at that point I was not thinking that we would have memoryless nodes. -- 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