Re: page migration patchset

[Steve Longerbeam]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/