On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:15:43PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c > > > > > > index 83decd6..68abef0 100644 > > > > > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > > > > > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > > > > > > @@ -1244,6 +1244,7 @@ static int adjust_pool_surplus(struct hstate *h, nodemask_t *nodes_allowed, > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > +#define NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY (-2) > > > > > > How about defining NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY as (NUMA_NO_NODE - 1) > > > just to ensure that it's different. Not sure it's worth an enum at this > > > point. NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY is private to hugetlb at this time. > > > > > > > That seems reasonable. > > > > If the nodemask allocation is moved to the sysctl handler and nodemask_t > is passed into set_max_huge_pages() instead of nid, you don't need > NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY at all, though. > Very likely. When V7 comes out, I'll spin a patch for that and see what it looks like if Lee doesn't beat me to it. -- 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
