Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:16:07 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] more support for memory-less-node. |
| |
Christoph Lameter wrote: > 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.
What's wrong with just setting the existing counters like node_spanned_pages / node_present_pages to zero?
M. - 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/
| |