On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:52:10PM -0400, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > @@ -1253,7 +1255,21 @@ static unsigned long set_max_huge_pages(
> > > if (h->order >= MAX_ORDER)
> > > return h->max_huge_pages;
> > >
> > > - nodes_allowed = huge_mpol_nodes_allowed();
> > > + if (nid == NO_NODEID_SPECIFIED)
> > > + nodes_allowed = huge_mpol_nodes_allowed();
> > > + else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * incoming 'count' is for node 'nid' only, so
> > > + * adjust count to global, but restrict alloc/free
> > > + * to the specified node.
> > > + */
> > > + count += h->nr_huge_pages - h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid];
> > > + nodes_allowed = alloc_nodemask_of_node(nid);
> >
> > alloc_nodemask_of_node() isn't defined anywhere.
>
>
> Well, that's because the patch that defines it is in a message that I
> meant to send before this one. I see it's in my Drafts folder. I'll
> attach that patch below. I'm rebasing against the 0827 mmotm, and I'll
> resend the rebased series. However, I wanted to get your opinion of the
> nodemask patch below.
>
It looks very reasonable to my eye. The caller must know that kfree() is
used to free it instead of free_nodemask_of_node() but it's not worth
getting into a twist over.
> <SNIP>
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
