On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> Hrm, I guess the simplest looking solution is rarely the best. Could
> we add more smarts in alloc_pages_current() to make GFP_THISNODE be
> equivalent to bind_zonelist(thisnode_only_mask)? I'll keep thinking,
> maybe I'll come up with something.
Yes
On 6/26/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
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)
>
On 6/26/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > + if (node != -1)
> > + page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order);
> > + else
> > +#endif
> > + page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
>
> Isn't the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > + if (node != -1)
> > + page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order);
> > + else
> > +#endif
> > + page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
>
> Isn't the above equivalent to a bare
>
> page =
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:06:16 +0900 Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
> with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
> asymmetric or otherwise.
>
> We follow the same conventions as
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:06:16 +0900 Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
We follow the same conventions as SLAB/SLUB,
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ if (node != -1)
+ page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order);
+ else
+#endif
+ page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
Isn't the above equivalent to a bare
page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp,
On 6/26/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+ if (node != -1)
+ page = alloc_pages_node(node, gfp, order);
+ else
+#endif
+ page = alloc_pages(gfp, order);
Isn't the above equivalent
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)
On 6/26/07, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
Hrm, I guess the simplest looking solution is rarely the best. Could
we add more smarts in alloc_pages_current() to make GFP_THISNODE be
equivalent to bind_zonelist(thisnode_only_mask)? I'll keep thinking,
maybe I'll come up with something.
Yes
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> >This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
> >with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
> >asymmetric or otherwise.
>
> Fine by me as well, FWIW. My
Paul Mundt wrote:
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
Fine by me as well, FWIW. My points about per-cpu/node queues were not
to say that I'm really opposed to
Paul Mundt wrote:
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
Fine by me as well, FWIW. My points about per-cpu/node queues were not
to say that I'm really opposed to
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:17:56PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Paul Mundt wrote:
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
Fine by me as well, FWIW. My points about
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
We follow the same conventions as SLAB/SLUB, preferring current node
placement for new pages, or with explicit placement, if a
This adds preliminary NUMA support to SLOB, primarily aimed at systems
with small nodes (tested all the way down to a 128kB SRAM block), whether
asymmetric or otherwise.
We follow the same conventions as SLAB/SLUB, preferring current node
placement for new pages, or with explicit placement, if a
18 matches
Mail list logo
