Re: [PATCH v3] mm: make expand_downwards symmetrical to expand_upwards

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi!

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I'm worry about this patch. A lot of mm code assume !NUMA systems
>> > only have node 0. Not only SLUB.
>>
>> So is that a valid assumption or not? Christoph seems to think it is
>> and James seems to think it's not. Which way should we aim to fix it?
>> Would be nice if other people chimed in as we already know what James
>> and Christoph think.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sorry. I don't know it really. The fact was gone into historical myst. ;-)
>
> Now, CONFIG_NUMA has mainly five meanings.
>
> 1) system may has !0 node id.
> 2) compile mm/mempolicy.c (ie enable mempolicy APIs)
> 3) Allocator (kmalloc, vmalloc, alloc_page, et al) awake NUMA topology.
> 4) enable zone-reclaim feature
> 5) scheduler makes per-node load balancing scheduler domain
>
> Anyway, we have to fix this issue.  I'm digging which fixing way has least risk.
>
>
> btw, x86 don't have an issue. Probably it's a reason why this issue was neglected
> long time.
>
> arch/x86/Kconfig
> -------------------------------------
> config ARCH_DISCONTIGMEM_ENABLE
>        def_bool y
>        depends on NUMA && X86_32

That part makes me think the best option is to make parisc do
CONFIG_NUMA as well regardless of the historical intent was.

                        Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/