On 01/26/2015 03:37 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Vlastimil Babka writes:
>
>> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
>>> wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
>>>
>>> That's a pretty cruddy sentence,
On 01/26/2015 03:37 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz writes:
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
That's a
Vlastimil Babka writes:
> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
>> wrote:
>>> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
>>
>> That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from
>> alloc_pages_vma().
On 01/26/2015 01:13 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
>> > wrote:
>> >> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
> > wrote:
> >> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
> >
> > That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it?
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
> wrote:
>> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
>
> That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from
> alloc_pages_vma(). "vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem" would be better.
>
>
On 01/26/2015 01:13 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem
Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz writes:
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from
alloc_pages_vma(). vma-vm_mm-mmap_sem would
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold.
That's a pretty cruddy
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
wrote:
> This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node if
> allowed by mempolicy. If we can't, we fallback to small page allocation
> based on mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages
> on local
This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node if
allowed by mempolicy. If we can't, we fallback to small page allocation
based on mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages
on local node is more beneficial than allocating hugepages on remote
node.
With
This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node if
allowed by mempolicy. If we can't, we fallback to small page allocation
based on mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages
on local node is more beneficial than allocating hugepages on remote
node.
With
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node if
allowed by mempolicy. If we can't, we fallback to small page allocation
based on mempolicy. This is based on the observation that
14 matches
Mail list logo