"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 12/01/2014 03:06 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:16:43AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>>> This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node if >>>>> allowed by mempolicy. If we can't, we fallback to small page allocation >>>>> based on mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages >>>>> on local node is more beneficial that allocating hugepages on remote node. >>>>> > ........ > ...... > >>>>> index e58725aff7e9..fa96af5b31f7 100644 >>>>> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c >>>>> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c >>>>> @@ -2041,6 +2041,46 @@ retry_cpuset: >>>>> return page; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(gfp_t gfp, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>>>> + unsigned long addr, int order) >> >> It's somewhat confusing that the name talks about hugepages, yet you >> have to supply the order and gfp. Only the policy handling is tailored >> for hugepages. But maybe it's better than calling the function >> "alloc_pages_vma_local_only_unless_interpolate" :/ >> > > I did try to do an API that does > > struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr) > > But that will result in further #ifdef in mm/mempolicy, because we will > then introduce transparent_hugepage_defrag(vma) and HPAGE_PMD_ORDER > there. I was not sure whether we really wanted that. > Any update on this ? Should I resend the patch rebasing it to the latest upstream ? -aneesh -- 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>