From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add populated_map to account for memoryless nodes In-Reply-To: <1181675840.5592.123.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070611202728.GD9920@us.ibm.com> <20070611221036.GA14458@us.ibm.com> <1181657940.5592.19.camel@localhost> <1181675840.5592.123.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, Kamezawa Hiroyuki List-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:45 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Now, Nish is proposing to use the populated map to filter policy-based > interleaved allocations. My definition of populated map won't work for > that. So, YOU are the one changing the definition. I'm OK with that if > it solves a more generic problem. My patch hadn't gone in anyway. Ok. So how about renaming the populated_map to node_memory_map so that its clear that this is a map of node with memory? GFP_THISNODE needs this map to fail on memoryless nodes. > Yes, but I didn't want to stick #ifdefs in the functions if I didn't > have to. But, it's a moot point. After looking at it more, I've > decided there may be no definition of populated map that works reliably > for huge page allocation on all of the platform configurations. > However, if GFP_THISNODE guarantees no off-node allocations, that may do > the trick. It can do that if the populated map works the right way.... circle is closing ... I can sent out a patchset in a few minutes that fixes the GFP_THISNODE issue and introduces node_memory_map. -- 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