On 07/30/2015 07:41 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:34:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
numa_mem_id() is able to handle allocation from CPUs on memory-less nodes,
so it's a more robust fallback than the currently used numa_node_id().
Won't it fall through to the next closest memory node in the zonelist
anyway?
Right, I would expect the zonelist of memoryless node to be the same as
of the closest node. Documentation/vm/numa seems to agree.
Is this for callers doing NUMA_NO_NODE with __GFP_THISZONE?
I guess that's the only scenario where that matters, yeah. And there
might well be no such caller now, but maybe some will sneak in without
the author testing on a system with memoryless node.
Note that with !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, numa_mem_id() just does
numa_node_id().
So yeah I think "a more robust fallback" is correct :) But let's put it
explicitly in changelog then:
----8<----
alloc_pages_node() might fail when called with NUMA_NO_NODE and
__GFP_THISNODE on a CPU belonging to a memoryless node. To make the
local-node fallback more robust and prevent such situations, use
numa_mem_id(), which was introduced for similar scenarios in the slab
context.
--
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>