From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx205.postini.com [74.125.245.205]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4F216B00EB for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:41:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if task is already on a correct node In-Reply-To: <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: References: <4F6B6BFF.1020701@redhat.com> <4F6B7358.60800@gmail.com> <4F6B7854.1040203@redhat.com> <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: lwoodman@redhat.com, KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Motohiro Kosaki On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4, > > 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 > > to keep the node ordering the same? > > Would it make more sense to do 5->6, 4->5, 3->4? If we move stuff > from 3 to 4 before clearing the old 4 stuff out, it might get crowded? Right. I thought Paul did take care of that way back when it was written? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org