From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx129.postini.com [74.125.245.129]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52B2E6B0044 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F6B880C.7000805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:04 -0400 From: Larry Woodman Reply-To: lwoodman@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if task is already on a correct node References: <4F6B6BFF.1020701@redhat.com> <4F6B7358.60800@gmail.com> <4F6B7854.1040203@redhat.com> <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Motohiro Kosaki On 03/22/2012 03:36 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:07:00 -0400, Larry Woodman said: > >> So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4, >> 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 >> to keep the node ordering the same? > Would it make more sense to do 5->6, 4->5, 3->4? If we move stuff > from 3 to 4 before clearing the old 4 stuff out, it might get crowded? > Yes, I didnt try to imply the order in which pages were moved just the additional moving necessary. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755873Ab2CVUOM (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3492 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994Ab2CVUOL (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4F6B880C.7000805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:04 -0400 From: Larry Woodman Reply-To: lwoodman@redhat.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Red Hat/3.1.7-3.el6_0 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu CC: Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Motohiro Kosaki Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] do_migrate_pages() calls migrate_to_node() even if task is already on a correct node References: <4F6B6BFF.1020701@redhat.com> <4F6B7358.60800@gmail.com> <4F6B7854.1040203@redhat.com> <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <40300.1332445016@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/22/2012 03:36 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:07:00 -0400, Larry Woodman said: > >> So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4, >> 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 >> to keep the node ordering the same? > Would it make more sense to do 5->6, 4->5, 3->4? If we move stuff > from 3 to 4 before clearing the old 4 stuff out, it might get crowded? > Yes, I didnt try to imply the order in which pages were moved just the additional moving necessary.