From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:37:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] NUMA: Generic management of nodemasks for various purposes In-Reply-To: <20070731203203.2691ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070727194316.18614.36380.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070727194322.18614.68855.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070731192241.380e93a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731200522.c19b3b95.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731203203.2691ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andi wants to drop support for NUMAQ again. Is that possible? NUMA only on > > 64 bit? > > umm, that would need wide circulation. I have a feeling that some > implementations of some of the more obscure 32-bit architectures can (or > will) have numa characteristics. Looks like mips might already. > > And doesn't i386 summit do numa? > > We could do it, but it would take some chin-scratching. It'd be good if we > could pull it off. Ok then we need to support highmem only nodes. New flag: N_HIGHMEMORY N_HIGHMEMORY means any memory. N_MEMORY means normal memory. slab etc needs to use N_MEMORY. pagecache / memory policies can use N_HIGHMEMORY Or do we want N_SLAB so that we can control which nodes are used by the slab allocators? The effect of memory policies will vary depending on where normal memory is available. -- 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