On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote: > > > Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@xxxxxxxxx> > > Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption > from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration? David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline. If I was asked this question I would respond The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort. If the unlikely race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance. The existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue. But I'm not the person proposing the patch. Please don't just ignore reviewer comments! -- 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>