Re: [patch 2/3] Fix GFP_THISNODE behavior for memoryless nodes

Nishanth Aravamudan
2007-06-14T00:04:56Z

On 13.06.2007 [16:53:26 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Sorry, the real reason for wrapping the patches and reposting, for
> > me, is that we've had a lot of versions flying around, with small
> > fixlets here and there. I wanted to start a new thread for the 3 or
> > so patches I see that implement the core of dealing with memoryless
> > nodes, and then keep the discussion going there, but that was purely
> > for my own sanity.
>
> Ok. I will try to put all the fixes together. Basically that will be
> the three patches plus Lee's new suggestion for alloc_pages_node. Plus
> fixes to slab / slub / the uncached allocator etc where I see that the
> online map is used but what was really intended was the
> node_memory_map. There is also stuff in the oom killer, vmscan.c etc
> that seems to make that assumption. Sigh.

Yeah, it's a big problem to solve, from an audit perspective.

> That still leaves the issue of the name.
>
> node_memory

node_has_memory?

Reading code, if I see:

if (node_has_memory(nid))

it's almost reading an English sentence! :)

> set_node_has_memory
> set_node_no_memory

node_set_has_memory
node_set_no_memory?

Just to be close to (but not quite the same as) online/offline.

Thanks,
Nish

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