From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:54:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] populated_map: fix !NUMA case, remove comment In-Reply-To: <20070612023209.GJ3798@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20070611221036.GA14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611225213.GB14458@us.ibm.com> <20070611234155.GG14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612000705.GH14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612020257.GF3798@us.ibm.com> <20070612023209.GJ3798@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: lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, anton@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 11.06.2007 [19:20:58 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > [PATCH v6][RFC] Fix hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes > > > > There is no point in compiling the interleave logic for !NUMA. There > > needs to be some sort of !NUMA fallback in hugetlb. It would be better > > to call a interleave function in mempolicy.c that provides an > > appropriate shim for !NUMA. > > Hrm, if !NUMA, is the nid of the only node guaranteed to be 0? If so, I > can just Yes. > Make alloc_fresh_huge_page() and other generic variants call into the > _node() versions with nid=0, if !NUMA. > > Would that be ok? I am not sure what you are up to. Just make sure that the changes are minimal. Look in the source code for other examples on how !NUMA situations were handled. -- 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