On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:08:59AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > On 5/11/21 3:27 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Marciniszyn, Mike wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why not kzalloc_node() here? > > > > > > I agree here. > > > > > > Other allocations that have been promoted to the core have lost the node attribute in the allocation. > > > > Did you notice any performance degradation? > > > > So what's the motivation to change it from the way it was originally > designed? It seems to me if the original implementation went to the trouble > to allocate the memory on the local node, refactoring the code should > respect that. I have no problem to make rdma_zalloc_*() node aware, but would like to get real performance justification. My assumption is that rdmavt use kzalloc_node for the control plane based on some internal performance testing and we finally can see the difference between kzalloc and kzalloc_node, am I right? Is the claim of performance degradation backed by data? The main reason (maybe I'm wrong here) is to avoid _node() allocators because they increase chances of memory allocation failure due to not doing fallback in case node memory is depleted. Again, I'm suggesting to do plain kzalloc() for control part of QP. Thanks > > -Denny
