From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] mm: system wide ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:43:25 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>,
       Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
       Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
       Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
References: <20070806102922.907530000@chello.nl> <200708061121.50351.phillips@phunq.net> <1186425063.11797.80.camel@lappy>
In-Reply-To: <1186425063.11797.80.camel@lappy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708061143.25583.phillips@phunq.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 857
Lines: 21

On Monday 06 August 2007 11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I agree that the reserve pool should be per-node in the end, but I
> > do not think that serves the interest of simplifying the initial
> > patch set.  How about a numa performance patch that adds onto the
> > end of Peter's series?
>
> Trouble with keeping this per node is that all the code dealing with
> the reserve needs to keep per-cpu state, which given that the system
> is really crawling at that moment, seems excessive.

It does.  I was suggesting that Christoph think about the NUMA part, our 
job just to save the world ;-)

Regards,

Daniel
-
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/