From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] NUMA: Generic management of nodemasks for various purposes In-Reply-To: <1185977011.5059.36.camel@localhost> 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> <1185977011.5059.36.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: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > I think Andrew is referring to the "exclude selected nodes from > interleave policy" and "preferred policy fixups" patches. Those are > related to the memoryless node patches in the sense that they touch some > of the same lines in mempolicy.c. However, IMO, those patches shouldn't > gate the memoryless node series once the i386 issues are resolved. Right. I think we first need to get the basic set straight. In order to be complete we need to audit all uses of node_online() in the kernel and think about those uses. They may require either N_NORMAL_MEMORY or N_HIGH_MEMORY depending on the check being for a page cache or a kernel allocation. Then we need to test on esoteric NUMA systems like NUMAQ and embedded. On the way we may add some additional stuff like interleave policy settings, restricting node use for hugh pages and slab etc. All of these are likely going to be important for asymmetric NUMA configurations that the memoryless_nodes patchset is going to address. -- 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