On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:58:52AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > 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? > > GFP_THISNODE allocatios must fail if there is no memory available on > the node. No fallback allowed. I don't know. The intention is that the caller wants something on this node or the caller will fail or fallback ourselves, right? For most use cases just considering the nearest memory node as "local" for memless nodes should work and serve the intentions of the users close enough. Whether that'd be better or we'd be better off with something else depends on the details for sure. 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>