From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] populated_map: fix !NUMA case, remove comment In-Reply-To: <1181674081.5592.91.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070611234155.GG14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612000705.GH14458@us.ibm.com> <20070612020257.GF3798@us.ibm.com> <20070612023209.GJ3798@us.ibm.com> <20070612032055.GQ3798@us.ibm.com> <1181660782.5592.50.camel@localhost> <20070612172858.GV3798@us.ibm.com> <1181674081.5592.91.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , anton@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Well, my patch [v4] fixed it on my platform. So this is a regression > relative to my patch. But, then, my patch had an issue with an x86_64 > system where one node is all/mostly DMA32 and other nodes have memory in > higher zones. Maybe that's OK [or not] for hugepage allocation, but > almost certainly not for regular page interleaving, ... Well this means your patch was arch specific. > > I'm much more concerned in the short term about the whole > > memoryless-node issue, which I think is more straight-forward, and > > generic to fix. > > Perhaps, but I think we're still going to get off node allocations with > the revised definition of the populated map and the new zonelist > ordering. I think we'll need to check for and reject off-node > allocations when '_THISNODE is specified. We can't assume that the > first zone in a node's zonelist for a given gfp_zone is on-node. We do not do that anymore. GFP_THISNODE guarantees the allocation on the node with alloc_pages_node. Read on. -- 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