lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] mm: make expand_downwards symmetrical to expand_upwards
Date
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > I'm worry about this patch. A lot of mm code assume !NUMA systems
> > only have node 0. Not only SLUB.
>
> So is that a valid assumption or not? Christoph seems to think it is
> and James seems to think it's not. Which way should we aim to fix it?
> Would be nice if other people chimed in as we already know what James
> and Christoph think.

I'm sorry. I don't know it really. The fact was gone into historical myst. ;-)

Now, CONFIG_NUMA has mainly five meanings.

1) system may has !0 node id.
2) compile mm/mempolicy.c (ie enable mempolicy APIs)
3) Allocator (kmalloc, vmalloc, alloc_page, et al) awake NUMA topology.
4) enable zone-reclaim feature
5) scheduler makes per-node load balancing scheduler domain

Anyway, we have to fix this issue. I'm digging which fixing way has least risk.


btw, x86 don't have an issue. Probably it's a reason why this issue was neglected
long time.

arch/x86/Kconfig
-------------------------------------
config ARCH_DISCONTIGMEM_ENABLE
def_bool y
depends on NUMA && X86_32





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-20 09:17    [W:1.642 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site