Re: [PATCH 6/6] hugetlb: update hugetlb documentation for mempolicy based management.

[David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > > > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > > index 83decd6..68abef0 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > > @@ -1244,6 +1244,7 @@ static int adjust_pool_surplus(struct hstate *h, nodemask_t *nodes_allowed,
> > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > +#define NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY (-2)
> > 
> > How about defining NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY as (NUMA_NO_NODE - 1)
> > just to ensure that it's different.  Not sure it's worth an enum at this
> > point.  NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY is private to hugetlb at this time.
> > 
> 
> That seems reasonable.
> 

If the nodemask allocation is moved to the sysctl handler and nodemask_t 
is passed into set_max_huge_pages() instead of nid, you don't need 
NUMA_NO_NODE_OBEY_MEMPOLICY at all, though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html