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.
-
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]
