On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:02:18AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > In this case, object from cpu1's cpu_cache should be > > different with cpu0's, so allocation would be failed. > > That is true for most object pointers unless the value is NULL. Which it > can be. But if this is the only case then the second patch + your approach > would work too. Indeed... I missed the null value case. Your second patch + mine would fix that situation, but, I need more thinking. :) Thanks. -- 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>