Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Memory Policy Cleanups and Enhancements

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:17 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> 
> > Andi, Christoph, Mel [added to cc]:
> > 
> > Any comments on these patches, posted 30aug?  I've rebased to
> > 23-rc4-mm1, but before reposting, I wanted to give you a chance to
> > comment.
> 
> Sorry that it took some time but I only just got around to look at them. 
> The one patch that I acked may be of higher priority and should probably 
> go in immediately to be merged for 2.6.24.

OK.  I'll pull that from the set and post it separately.  I'll see if it
conflicts with Mel's set.  If so, we'll need to decide on the ordering.
Do we think Mel's patches will make .24?

> 
> > I'm going to add Mel's "one zonelist" series to my mempolicy tree with
> > these patches and see how that goes.  I'll slide Mel's patches in below
> > these, as it looks like they're closer to acceptance into -mm.
> 
> That patchset will have a significant impact on yours. You may be able to 
> get rid of some of the switch statements. It would be great if we had some 
> description as to where you are heading with the incremental changes to 
> the memory policy semantics? I sure wish we would have something more 
> consistent and easier to understand.

The general reaction to such descriptions is "show me the code."  So, if
we agree that Mel's patches should go first, I'll rebase and update the
numa_memory_policy doc accordingly to explain the resulting semantics.
Perhaps Mel should considering updating that document where his patches
change/invalidate the current descriptions.

Does this sound like a resonable way to proceed?

Lee

--
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>