From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:14:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: fix hugepage allocation with memoryless nodes In-Reply-To: <20071011041119.GB32657@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20071009012724.GA26472@us.ibm.com> <20071011041119.GB32657@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: anton@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, agl@us.ibm.com, wli@holomorphy.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ static unsigned int surplus_huge_pages_node[MAX_NUMNODES]; > > static gfp_t htlb_alloc_mask = GFP_HIGHUSER; > > unsigned long hugepages_treat_as_movable; > > int hugetlb_dynamic_pool; > > +static int last_allocated_nid; > > While reworking patch 2/2 to incorporate the current state of hugetlb.c > after Adam's stack is applied, I realized that this is not a very good > name. It actually is the *current* nid to try to allocate hugepages on. > > Christoph, since you proposed the name, do you think > > hugetlb_current_nid > > is ok, too? If so I'll change the name throughout the patch (no > functional change). Sure. However, current is bit ambiguous. Is it the node we used last or the one to use next? Call it next_hugetlb_nid? Either way is fine with me though. -- 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