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

    > Andi Kleen wrote:
    > >On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:56:53 +0200
    > >Manfred Spraul <> 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.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.020 / U:3.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site