Hello, On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:13:57AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Allocators typically fall back but they wont in some cases if you say > that you want memory from a particular node. A GFP_THISNODE would force a > failure of the alloc. In other cases it should fall back. I am not sure > that all allocations obey these conventions though. But, GFP_THISNODE + numa_mem_id() is identical to numa_node_id() + nearest node with memory fallback. Is there any case where the user would actually want to always fail if it's on the memless node? Even if that's the case, there's no reason to burden everyone with this distinction. Most users just wanna say "I'm on this node. Please allocate considering that". There's nothing wrong with using numa_node_id() for that. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>