> > > > > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > index f332ec0..019baae 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > @@ -1593,6 +1593,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_struct *p) > > > p->numa_scan_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq : 0; > > > p->numa_migrate_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq - 1 : 0; > > > p->numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay; > > > + p->numa_preferred_nid = -1; > > > > Though we may not want to inherit faults, I think the tasks generally > > share pages with their siblings, parent. So will it make sense to > > inherit the preferred node? > > One of the patches I have locally wipes the numa state on exec(). I > think we want to do that if we're going to think about inheriting stuff. > > Agree, if we inherit the preferred node, we would have to reset on exec. Since we have to reset the numa_faults also on exec, the reset of preferred node can go in task_numa_free -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju -- 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>