On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:17 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > For some systems [not mine], the nodemasks can get quite large. I have > > a patch, that I've tested atop Mel Gorman's "onezonelist" patches that > > replaces the nodemasks embedded in struct mempolicy with pointers to > > dynamically allocated ones. However, it's probably not much of a win, > > memorywise, if most of the uses are for interleave and bind > > policies--both of which would always need the nodemasks in addition to > > the pointers. > > > > Now, if we could replace the 'cpuset_mems_allowed' nodemask with a > > pointer to something stable, it might be a win. > > The memory policies are already shared and have refcounters for that > purpose.
I must have missed that in the code I'm reading :) Have a nice weekend. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
