From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:10:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: poor man's NUMA support. In-Reply-To: <29495f1d0706261204x5b49511co18546443c78033fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20070619090616.GA23697@linux-sh.org> <20070626002131.ff3518d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <29495f1d0706261204x5b49511co18546443c78033fd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nish Aravamudan Cc: Andrew Morton , Paul Mundt , Matt Mackall , Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nish Aravamudan wrote: > > No. alloc_pages follows memory policy. alloc_pages_node does not. One of > > the reasons that I want a new memory policy layer are these kinds of > > strange uses. > > What would break by changing, in alloc_pages_node() > > if (nid < 0) > nid = numa_node_id(); > > to > > if (nid < 0) > return alloc_pages_current(gfp_mask, order); > > beyond needing to make alloc_pages_current() defined if !NUMA too. It would make alloc_pages_node obey memory policies instead of only following cpuset constraints. An a memory policy may redirect the allocation from the local node ;-). -- 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