On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:11:51 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Andrew. > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:20:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > When a pool workqueue is initialized, if its cpumask belongs to a node, its > > > pool->node will be mapped to that node. And memory used by this workqueue will > > > also be allocated on that node. > > > > Plan B is to hunt down and fix up all the workqueue structures at > > hotplug-time. Has that option been evaluated? > > > > Your fix is x86-only and this bug presumably affects other > > architectures, yes? I think a "Plan B" would fix all architectures? > > Yeah, that was one of the early approaches. The issue isn't limited > to wq. Any memory allocation can have similar issues of underlying > node association changing and we don't have any synchronization > mechanism around it. It doesn't make any sense to make NUMA > association dynamic when the consumer surface is vastly larger and > there's nothing inherently dynamic about the association itself. And other architectures? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>