On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:19:14AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Yes that works. But if we want a consistent node to allocate from (and > avoid the fallbacks) then we need this patch. I think this is up to those > needing memoryless nodes to figure out what semantics they need. I'm not following what you're saying. Are you saying that we need to spread numa_mem_id() all over the place for GFP_THISNODE users on memless nodes? There aren't that many users of GFP_THISNODE. Wouldn't it make far more sense to just change them? Or just introduce a new GFP flag GFP_CLOSE_OR_BUST which allows falling back to the nearest local node for memless nodes. There's no reason to leak this information outside allocator proper. 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>