From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47236B004D for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix SLQB on memoryless configurations V2 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <1253549426-917-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> References: <1253549426-917-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:00:03 +1000 Message-Id: <1253577603.7103.174.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Nick Piggin , Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, sachinp@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tejun Heo List-ID: On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 17:10 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > It needs signed-off from the powerpc side because it's now allocating > more > memory potentially (Ben?). An alternative to this patch is in V1 that > statically declares the per-node structures but this is potentially > sub-optimal but from a performance and memory utilisation perspective. So if I understand correctly, we have a problem with both cpu-less and memory-less nodes. Interesting setups :-) I have no strong objection on the allocating of the per-cpu data for the cpu-less nodes. However, I wonder if we should do that a bit more nicely, maybe with some kind of "adjusted" cpu_possible_mask() (could be something like cpu_node_valid_mask or similar) to be used by percpu. Mostly because it would be nice to have built-in debug features in per-cpu and in that case, it would need some way to know a valid number from an invalid one). Either that or just keep track of the mask of cpus that had percpu data allocated to them Cheers, Ben. -- 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: email@kvack.org