From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:53:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Fix GFP_THISNODE behavior for memoryless nodes In-Reply-To: <20070613233256.GZ3798@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20070612204843.491072749@sgi.com> <20070612205738.548677035@sgi.com> <1181769033.6148.116.camel@localhost> <20070613231153.GW3798@us.ibm.com> <20070613232005.GY3798@us.ibm.com> <20070613233256.GZ3798@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 , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de List-ID: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Sorry, the real reason for wrapping the patches and reposting, for me, > is that we've had a lot of versions flying around, with small fixlets > here and there. I wanted to start a new thread for the 3 or so patches I > see that implement the core of dealing with memoryless nodes, and then > keep the discussion going there, but that was purely for my own sanity. Ok. I will try to put all the fixes together. Basically that will be the three patches plus Lee's new suggestion for alloc_pages_node. Plus fixes to slab / slub / the uncached allocator etc where I see that the online map is used but what was really intended was the node_memory_map. There is also stuff in the oom killer, vmscan.c etc that seems to make that assumption. Sigh. That still leaves the issue of the name. node_memory set_node_has_memory set_node_no_memory Ok? -- 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