Hi, Lee. On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:13 -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 11:07 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > I don't want to remove alloc_pages for UMA system. > > > > alloc_pages is the same as alloc_pages_any_node so why have it? > > > > > #define alloc_pages alloc_page_sexact_node > > > > > > What I want to remove is just alloc_pages_node. :) > > > > Why remove it? If you want to get rid of -1 handling then check all the > > callsites and make sure that they are not using -1. > > > > Also could you define a constant for -1? -1 may have various meanings. One > > is the local node and the other is any node. > > NUMA_NO_NODE is #defined as (-1) and can be used for this purpose. '-1' > has been replaced by this in many cases. It can be interpreted as "No > node specified" == "any node is acceptable". But, it also has multiple > meanings. E.g., in the hugetlb sysfs attribute and sysctl functions it > indicates the global hstates [all nodes] vs a per node hstate. So, I > suppose one could define a NUMA_ANY_NODE, to make the intention clear at > the call site. > > I believe that all usage of -1 to mean the local node has been removed, > unless I missed one. Local allocation is now indicated by a mempolicy > mode flag--MPOL_F_LOCAL. It's treated as a special case of > MPOL_PREFERRED. Thanks for good information. :) -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>