On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 17:16 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This is not the first time HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP has been > problematic. > I might be missing something but I really do not get why do we really > need it these days. As for !NUMA, I suspect we can make it generate > the > right thing when !NUMA. We're working on a different fix now. It looks like cma_declare_contiguous calls memblock_phys_alloc_range, which calls memblock_alloc_range_nid, which takes a NUMA node as one of its arguments. Aslan is looking at simply adding a cma_declare_contiguous_nid, which also takes a NUMA node ID as an argument. At that point we can simply leave CMA free to allocate from anywhere in each NUMA node, which by default already happens from the top down. That should be the nicer long term fix to this issue. -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
