Re: [PATCH] populated_map: fix !NUMA case, remove comment

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 11.06.2007 [19:54:13 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 
> > On 11.06.2007 [19:20:58 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > 
> > > > [PATCH v6][RFC] Fix hugetlb pool allocation with empty nodes
> > > 
> > > There is no point in compiling the interleave logic for !NUMA.
> > > There needs to be some sort of !NUMA fallback in hugetlb. It would
> > > be better to call a interleave function in mempolicy.c that
> > > provides an appropriate shim for !NUMA.
> > 
> > Hrm, if !NUMA, is the nid of the only node guaranteed to be 0? If so, I
> > can just
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Make alloc_fresh_huge_page() and other generic variants call into
> > the _node() versions with nid=0, if !NUMA.
> > 
> > Would that be ok?
> 
> I am not sure what you are up to. Just make sure that the changes are
> minimal. Look in the source code for other examples on how !NUMA
> situations were handled.

I swear I'm trying to make the code do the right thing, and understand
the NUMA intricacies better. Sorry for the flood of e-mails and such. I
asked about specific other cases because they are used in !NUMA
situations too and I wasn't sure why node_populated_map should be
different.

But ok, I will rely on the source to be correct and make my changelog
indicate where I got the ideas from.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>