On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:55:59AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > 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(). > > True but the advantage is that the numa_mem_id() allows the use of a > consitent sort of "local" node which increases allocator performance due > to the abillity to cache objects from that node. But the allocator can do the mapping the same. I really don't see why we'd push the distinction to the individual users. 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>