On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:48:58PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
>
> The two cases were your patch still applied memory policies were:
>
> 1. nodeid = -1. This is one particular case that we wanted to fix because
> it means use numa_node_id().
OK, I did not realise nodeid = -1 _should_ imply current node. Not using
mempolicy makes sense then.
>
> 2. The case where the nodelist does not yet exist.
>
> AFAIK this situation only occurs on boot strap when we are actually
> attempting to allocate from a different node than what we are running on.
> Falling back to the local node is the right thing to do because we have
> that already working. A process that is running on a node must always have
> the nodelists for all caches allocated. The cpuup callbacks take care of that.
>
> kmalloc_node needs work like page_alloc_node. page_alloc_node() never
> consults memory policies and thus one would not expect kmalloc_node to do
> so either.
OK.
-
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]
