* Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> [2020-03-19 15:10:19]: > On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > * Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> [2020-03-19 14:47:58]: > > > >> ----8<---- > >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > >> index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644 > >> --- a/mm/slub.c > >> +++ b/mm/slub.c > >> @@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node, > >> > >> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) > >> searchnode = numa_mem_id(); > >> - else if (!node_present_pages(node)) > >> - searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node); > >> > >> object = get_partial_node(s, get_node(s, searchnode), c, flags); > > > > Are we okay with passing a node to get_partial_node with !NUMA_NO_NODE and > > !N_MEMORY including possible nodes? > > No, but AFAICS, such node values are already handled in ___slab_alloc, and > cannot reach get_partial(). If you see something I missed, please do tell. > Ah I probably got confused with your previous version where alloc_slab_page() was modified. I see no problems with this version. Sorry for the noise. A question just for my better understanding, How worse would it be to set node to numa_mem_id() instead of NUMA_NODE_ID when the current node is !N_NORMAL_MEMORY? > >> if (object || node != NUMA_NO_NODE) > > > -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju
