On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:37:24PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: > > When CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is enabled, cpu_to_node()/numa_node_id() > > may return a node without memory, and later cause system failure/panic > > when calling kmalloc_node() and friends with returned node id. > > The patch itself looks okay to me but is this the right way to handle > this? Can't we just let the allocators fall back to the nearest node > with memory? Why do we need to impose this awareness of memory-less > node on all the users? Allocators typically fall back but they wont in some cases if you say that you want memory from a particular node. A GFP_THISNODE would force a failure of the alloc. In other cases it should fall back. I am not sure that all allocations obey these conventions though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
