On 24.01.2014 [13:03:13 -0800], David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > >diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > > > >index 545a170..a1c6040 100644 > > > >--- a/mm/slub.c > > > >+++ b/mm/slub.c > > > >@@ -1700,6 +1700,9 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node, > > > > void *object; > > > > int searchnode = (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_node_id() : node; > > > > This needs to be numa_mem_id() and numa_mem_id would need to be > > consistently used. > > > > > > > > > >+ if (!node_present_pages(searchnode)) > > > >+ searchnode = numa_mem_id(); > > > > Probably wont need that? > > > > I think the problem is a memoryless node being used for kmalloc_node() so > we need to decide where to enforce node_present_pages(). __slab_alloc() > seems like the best candidate when !node_match(). Actually, this is effectively what Anton's patch does, except with Wanpeng's adjustment to use node_present_pages(). Does that seem sufficient to you? It does only cover the memoryless node case (not the exhausted node case), but I think that shouldn't block the fix (and it does fix the issue we've run across in our testing). -Nish -- 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>