On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:15:27AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 11.07.2014 [08:14:05 -0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:37:18PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: > > > When CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is enabled, cpu_to_node()/numa_node_id() > > > may return a node without memory, and later cause system failure/panic > > > when calling kmalloc_node() and friends with returned node id. > > > So use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() instead to get the nearest node with > > > memory for the/current cpu. > > > > > > If CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is disabled, cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() > > > is the same as cpu_to_node()/numa_node_id(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > For the rcutorture piece: > > > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Or if you separate the kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c portion into a separate > > patch, I will queue it separately. > > Just FYI, based upon a separate discussion with Tejun and others, it > seems to be preferred to avoid the proliferation of cpu_to_mem > throughout the kernel blindly. For kthread_create_on_node(), I'm going > to try and fix the underlying issue and so you, as the caller, should > still specify the NUMA node you are running the kthread on > (cpu_to_node), not where you expect the memory to come from > (cpu_to_mem). Even better!!! ;-) Thanx, Paul -- 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>