On Fri, 23 May 2014, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > index c920215..58e6469 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ struct device_node; > */ > #define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 10 > > +#include <linux/nodemask.h> > #include <asm/mmzone.h> > > static inline int cpu_to_node(int cpu) > @@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ static inline int cpu_to_node(int cpu) > * During early boot, the numa-cpu lookup table might not have been > * setup for all CPUs yet. In such cases, default to node 0. > */ > - return (nid < 0) ? 0 : nid; > + return (nid < 0) ? first_online_node : nid; > } > > #define parent_node(node) (node) I wonder what would happen on ppc if we just returned NUMA_NO_NODE here for cpus that have not been mapped (they shouldn't even be possible). This would at least allow callers that do kmalloc_node(..., cpu_to_node(cpu)) to be allocated on the local cpu rather than on a perhaps offline or remote node 0. It would seem better to catch callers that do cpu_to_node(<not-possible-cpu>) rather than blindly return an online node. -- 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>