Re: [PATCH 00/18] multiple preferred nodes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed 24-06-20 13:01:40, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 20-06-24 21:51:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 24-06-20 12:37:33, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > On 20-06-24 20:39:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 24-06-20 09:16:43, Ben Widawsky wrote:
[...]
> > > > > > Or do I miss something that really requires more involved approach like
> > > > > > building custom zonelists and other larger changes to the allocator?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think I'm missing how this allows selecting from multiple preferred nodes. In
> > > > > this case when you try to get the page from the freelist, you'll get the
> > > > > zonelist of the preferred node, and when you actually scan through on page
> > > > > allocation, you have no way to filter out the non-preferred nodes. I think the
> > > > > plumbing of multiple nodes has to go all the way through
> > > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask(). But it's possible I've missed the point.
> > > > 
> > > > policy_nodemask() will provide the nodemask which will be used as a
> > > > filter on the policy_node.
> > > 
> > > Ah, gotcha. Enabling independent masks seemed useful. Some bad decisions got me
> > > to that point. UAPI cannot get independent masks, and callers of these functions
> > > don't yet use them.
> > > 
> > > So let me ask before I actually type it up and find it's much much simpler, is
> > > there not some perceived benefit to having both masks being independent?
> > 
> > I am not sure I follow. Which two masks do you have in mind? zonelist
> > and user provided nodemask?
> 
> Internally, a nodemask_t for preferred node, and a nodemask_t for bound nodes.

Each mask is a local to its policy object.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux