From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:43:32 -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: <20070611193646.GB9920@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20070607150425.GA15776@us.ibm.com> <20070607220149.GC15776@us.ibm.com> <466D44C6.6080105@shadowen.org> <20070611171201.GB3798@us.ibm.com> <20070611193646.GB9920@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, ak@suse.de, anton@samba.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > So, I'm splitting up the populated_map patch in two, so that these bits > or the hugetlbfs bits could be put on top of having that nodemask. Well maybe just do a single populate_map patch first. We can easily review that and get it in. And it will be useful for multiple other patchsets. > *but*, if this change occurs in mempolicy.c, I think we still have a > problem, where me->il_next could be initialized in do_set_mempolicy() to > a memoryless node: I thought that one misalloc would not be that problematic (hmmmm... unless its a hugetlb page on smallist NUMA system...) > if (new && new->policy == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) > current->il_next = first_node(new->v.nodes); Hmmmm... We could also switch off the nodes in v.nodes? Then we do not need any additional checks and the modifications to interleave() are not necessary? -- 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