![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 19:21, Paul Jackson wrote: > Just as code in kernel/sched.c:move_task_off_dead_cpu() > updates the affected tasks cpus_allowed to move off a dead > CPU, calling cpuset_cpus_allowed() to get a new list of > candidate CPUs to be set in task->cpus_allowed, similarly I > expect that disabling a Memory Node should result in some > "move_task_off_dead_memory()" routine, that called a cpuset > routine to be called "cpuset_mems_allowed()", to get a new > list of Memory Nodes, to be set in task->mems_allowed. > > Does this expectation fit for you? If so, let me know when > you want the"cpuset_mems_allowed()" routine - or take a stab > at it yourself if you find that easier. That seems pretty reasonable to me. The fallback order that's implemented in move_task_off_dead_cpu() seems very similar to what needs to be done for memory. However, those operations might have to occur a bit earlier in the process for memory. Consider a case where a zone is shrinking, and memory is being moved out of a section inside of it. We should try to allocate the memory to move pages from the shrinking area in the same zone, the same node, then in other ever-less-optimal NUMA nodes. But, this has to occur in any removal case, even before the node is completely gone. So, for now, I think that we probably need to go about the normal removal process, and make sure to update mems_allowed if a process's page is migrated to a place that wasn't in its mems_allowed. Is it easy to tell if a given page was influenced by a cpusets allocation? How would the memory removal code know which task[s] to go and update? > There are other ways to skin this cat - feel free to offer > such up if that fits your work better. My only other idea is just to leave it alone for now. We're still a good bit of time away from removing NUMA nodes and I'll probably have a much better idea about what we need when that occurs. Somebody correct me if you disagree, but I don't see merging memory removal as something that's going to happen in the next couple of months. The work that I'm doing on it now is more so that I can robustly test addition over, and over, and over again and get _additiion_ in a mergable state. I hate to have you or anyone else do a bunch of work for something that isn't in-tree or planned to be in-tree for a while. We'll fix it when we get there :) -- Dave - 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 14:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||