Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753759Ab1DOXmU (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:42:20 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:26498 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187Ab1DOXmT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:42:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=aeFZcXD6DjH0w4OODfstoIngnb5BFFJM6xF52u491Ucsi8nu30X+CEE4lD4gc5ZPr/ YOVEUE4rNLYscedlQTGQ== Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:42:13 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Michal Hocko cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , LKML , Jack Steiner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Paul Menage , Robin Holt , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpusets: randomize node rotor used in cpuset_mem_spread_node() In-Reply-To: <20110415082051.GB8828@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20110414065146.GA19685@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110414160145.0830.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110415161831.12F8.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110415082051.GB8828@tiehlicka.suse.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1102 Lines: 27 On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Michal Hocko wrote: > You are right. I was thinking about lazy approach and initialize those > values when they are used for the first time. What about the patch > below? > > Change from v1: > - initialize cpuset_{mem,slab}_spread_rotor lazily > The difference between this v2 patch and what is already in the -mm tree (http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/cpusets-randomize-node-rotor-used-in-cpuset_mem_spread_node.patch) is the lazy initialization by adding cpuset_{mem,slab}_spread_node()? It'd probably be better to just make an incremental patch on top of mmotm-2011-04-14-15-08 with a new changelog and then propose with with your list of reviewed-by lines. Andrew could easily drop the earlier version and merge this v2, but I'm asking for selfish reasons: please use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of -1. Thanks! -- 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/