Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:43:39 -0800 | From | Steve Longerbeam <> | Subject | Re: page migration patchset |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:56:29PM -0800, Steve Longerbeam wrote: > > >>Hugetlbfs is also defining its own shared policy RB tree in its >>inode info struct, but it doesn't seem to be used, just initialized >>and freed at alloc/destroy inode time. Does anyone know why that >>is there? A place-holder for future hugetlbfs mempolicy support? >>If so, it can be removed and use the generic_file policies instead. >> >> > >You need lazy hugetlbfs to use it (= allocate at page fault time, >not mmap time). Otherwise the policy can never be applied. I implemented >my own version of lazy allocation for SLES9, but when I wanted to >merge it into mainline some other people told they had a much better >singing&dancing lazy hugetlb patch. So I waited for them, but they >never went forward with their stuff and their code seems to be dead >now. So this is still a dangling end :/ > >If nothing happens soon regarding the "other" hugetlb code I will >forward port my SLES9 code. It already has NUMA policy support. > >For now you can remove the hugetlb policy code from mainline if you >want, it would be easy to readd it when lazy hugetlbfs is merged. > >
if you don't mind I'd like to. Sounds as if lazy hugetlbfs would be able to make use of the generic file mapping->policy instead of a hugetlb-specific policy anyway. Same goes for shmem.
Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |