From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13EDB2C0081 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:39:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e37.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:39:42 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.19]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29BD19D8042 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:39:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s17LdG5r7537048 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:39:21 +0100 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s17LdJ4X024670 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:39:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:38:55 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] topology: support node_numa_mem() for determining the fallback node Message-ID: <20140207213855.GA24989@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140206020757.GC5433@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1391674026-20092-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1391674026-20092-2-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20140207054819.GC28952@lge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: Han Pingtian , Matt Mackall , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Wanpeng Li List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07.02.2014 [12:51:07 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote: > Here is a draft of a patch to make this work with memoryless nodes. Hi Christoph, this should be tested instead of Joonsoo's patch 2 (and 3)? Thanks, Nish