Re: [RFC Patch V1 07/30] mm: Use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() to support memoryless node

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:13:57AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

But, GFP_THISNODE + numa_mem_id() is identical to numa_node_id() +
nearest node with memory fallback.  Is there any case where the user
would actually want to always fail if it's on the memless node?

Even if that's the case, there's no reason to burden everyone with
this distinction.  Most users just wanna say "I'm on this node.
Please allocate considering that".  There's nothing wrong with using
numa_node_id() for that.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux DVB]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     []     [Util Linux NG]     [Fedora Women]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]

  Powered by Linux