On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> Allocations backed by a mempool must always be allocated via
> mempool_alloc() (or mempool_alloc_node() in this case). What that means
> is, without a mempool_alloc_node() function, NO mempool backed allocations
> will be able to request a specific node, even when the system has PLENTY of
> memory! This, IMO, is unacceptable. Adding more NUMA-awareness to the
> mempool system allows us to keep the same slab behavior as before, as well
> as leaving us free to ignore the node requests when memory is low.
Ok. That makes sense. I thought the mempool_xxx functions were only for
emergencies. But nevertheless you still duplicate all memory allocation
functions. I already was a bit concerned when I added the _node stuff.
What may be better is to add some kind of "allocation policy" to an
allocation. That allocation policy could require the allocation on a node,
distribution over a series of nodes, require allocation on a particular
node, or allow the use of emergency pools etc.
Maybe unify all the different page allocations to one call and do the
same with the slab allocator.
-
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]
