Re: [RFC] [PATCH] more support for memory-less-node.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

Adding NULL tests all over mm for this would seem like a clear case
of this to me.

Maybe there is an alternative. We are free to number the nodes right? How about requiring the low node number to have memory and the high ones do not?

F.e. have a boundary like

nr_mem_nodes ?

Everything above nr_mem_nodes has no memory and cannot be specified in a nodemask. Those nodes would not be visible to user space via memory policies and page migration. So the core mempolicy logic could be left untouched.

The nodes above nr_mem_nodes would exist purely within the kernel. They would have proximity information (which can be used to determine neighboring memory. More flexible then the current attachment to one fixed memory node) but those node numbers could not be specified as node masks in any memory operations. This would then allow memory less nodes with I/O or cpus. The user would not be aware of these.

What's wrong with just setting the existing counters like
node_spanned_pages / node_present_pages to zero?

M.
-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux