lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Use numa policy API for boot time policy
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:20:53 +0200
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:

> Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:56:53 +0200
> >Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Does it work for order != 0 allocations? It's important that the big
> >>hash tables do not end up all in node 0. AFAICS alloc_pages_current()
> >>calls interleave_nodes() only for order==0 allocs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's correct. It will only work for order 0 allocations.
> >
> >
> >
> What's the purpose of the "&& order == 0)" test for MPOL_INTERLEAVE in
> alloc_pages_current?
> What would break if it's removed?

Nothing. Just the interleaving will not be very good.
Just the vma interleaving relies on order 0 right now.

But I would really try to use vmalloc() for this. In fact you don't
even need vmalloc_interleaved(), because the normal vmalloc allocation
together with the interleave policy should do the right thing.

>
> And what about in_interrupt() allocations? During boot everything should
> be interleaved - I'd modify default_policy to MPOL_INTERLEAVE instead of
> setting process affinity.

Better don't do that. It may break some subtle assumptions.

I guess the in_interrupt() allocations will have to live with that.
They should be relatively rare.

In theory you could add a system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING check again,
but polluting the fast path for this would be imho overkill.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site