From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268914AbUHMAd3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:33:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268915AbUHMAd2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:33:28 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:32655 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268914AbUHMAdH (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:33:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:32:55 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Jesse Barnes Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocate page caches pages in round robin fasion Message-ID: <20040813003255.GS11200@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Jesse Barnes , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com References: <200408121646.50740.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20040813001331.GR11200@holomorphy.com> <200408121725.15985.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408121725.15985.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:13 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Interesting. This may attempt to allocate from offlined nodes, assuming >> one adds on sufficient hotplug bits atop mainline and/or -mm. The >> following almost does it hotplug-safe except that it needs to enter the >> allocator with preemption disabled and drop the preempt_count >> internally to it. On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:25:15PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Can we make alloc_pages_node take offline nodes instead? Maybe it could just > allocate from the next nearest node or something? I don't think we should do anything but point it out for those writing the hotplug patches to look for. There are enough interactions in general we're not even looking for that making the whole tree hotplug-safe is hopeless unless the hotplug ppl get involved with e.g. more complete patches, being able to actually test things, etc. On Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:13 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I suspect we are better off punting this in the direction of hotplug >> people than trying to address it ourselves. I think we should go with >> this now, as the node hotplug bits are yet to hit the tree. On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:25:15PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Yeah, agreed. Yes... their patch, their implementation burden. -- wli