On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, David Rientjes wrote: > Eek, yeah, that does look bad. I'm not even sure the > > if (nid < 0) > nid = numa_node_id(); > > is correct; I think this should be comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE rather than > all negative numbers, otherwise we silently ignore overflow and nobody > ever knows. Comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE would be better. Also use numa_mem_id() instead to support memoryless nodes better? > The only possible downside would be existing users of > alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a > VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a > VM_WARN_ON() and eventually fixed up because it's nonsensical. > VM_BUG_ON() here should be avoided. The offline node thing could be addresses by using numa_mem_id()? -- 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>