Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
>
>>Not all requests for memory from a specific node are performance
>>enhancements, some are for correctness. With large machines, especially as
>
>
> alloc_pages_node and friends do not guarantee allocation on that specific
> node. That argument for "correctness" is bogus.
alloc_pages_node() does not guarantee allocation on a specific node, but
calling __alloc_pages() with a specific nodelist would.
>>>You do not need this....
>>
>>I do not agree...
>
>
> There is no way that you would need this patch.
My goal was to not change the behavior of the slab allocator when inserting
a mempool-backed allocator "under" it. Without support for at least
*requesting* allocations from a specific node when allocating from a
mempool, this would change how the slab allocator works. That would be
bad. The slab allocator now does not guarantee that, for example, a
kmalloc_node() request is satisfied by memory from the requested node, but
it does at least TRY. Without adding mempool_alloc_node() then I would
never be able to even TRY to satisfy a mempool-backed kmalloc_node()
request from the correct node. I believe that would constitute an
unacceptable breakage from normal, documented behavior. So, I *do* need
this patch.
-Matt
-
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]
