On Thu 19-03-20 12:56:34, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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. Yes, that sounds like a better solution. Not that I would be much happier to have HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP off the table as well ;) Ohh well, it will have to remain on my todo list for some longer. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
