On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 01:12:18AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:00PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > This is where the mm_autonuma structure is being handled. Just like
> > sched_autonuma, this is only allocated at runtime if the hardware the
> > kernel is running on has been detected as NUMA. On not NUMA hardware
>
> I think the correct wording is "non-NUMA", not "not NUMA".
That sounds far too easy to me, but I've no idea what's the right is here.
> > the memory cost is reduced to one pointer per mm.
> >
> > To get rid of the pointer in the each mm, the kernel can be compiled
> > with CONFIG_AUTONUMA=n.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/fork.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index 0adbe09..3e5a0d9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -527,6 +527,8 @@ static void mm_init_aio(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >
> > static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(alloc_mm_autonuma(mm)))
> > + goto out_free_mm;
>
> So reading that I would think that on non-NUMA machines this would fail
> (since there is nothing to allocate). But that is not the case
> (I hope!?) Perhaps just make the function not return any values?
It doesn't fail, it returns 0 on non-NUMA. It's identical to
alloc_task_autonuma, per prev email.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>