On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:21:56AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Also, this is minor but don't we also lose fallback information by doing this from the caller? Please consider the following topology where each hop is the same distance. A - B - X - C - D Where X is the memless node. num_mem_id() on X would return either B or C, right? If B or C can't satisfy the allocation, the allocator would fallback to A from B and D for C, both of which aren't optimal. It should first fall back to C or B respectively, which the allocator can't do anymoe because the information is lost when the caller side performs numa_mem_id(). Seems pretty misguided to me. 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>