On 21.07.2014 [12:53:33 -0700], Alexander Duyck wrote: > I do agree the description should probably be changed. There shouldn't be > any panics involved, only a performance impact as it will be reallocating > always if it is on a node with no memory. Yep, thanks for the review. > My intention on this was to make certain that the memory used is from the > closest node possible. As such I believe this change likely honours that. Absolutely, just wanted to make it explicit that it's not a functional fix, just a performance fix (presuming this shows up at all on systems that have memoryless NUMA nodes). I'd suggest an update to the comments, as well. Thanks, Nish -- 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>