Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue 19-06-18 15:54:26, Punit Agrawal wrote: > [...] >> In terms of $SUBJECT, I wonder if it's worth taking the original patch >> as a temporary fix (it'll also be easier to backport) while we work on >> fixing these other issues and enabling memoryless nodes. > > Well, x86 already does that but copying this antipatern is not really > nice. So it is good as a quick fix but it would be definitely much > better to have a robust fix. Who knows how many other places might hit > this. You certainly do not want to add a hack like this all over... Completely agree! I was only suggesting it as a temporary measure, especially as it looked like a proper fix might be invasive. Another fix might be to change the node specific allocation to node agnostic allocations. It isn't clear why the allocation is being requested from a specific node. I think Lorenzo suggested this in one of the threads. I've started putting together a set fixing the issues identified in this thread. It should give a better idea on the best course of action.
