On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:19:14AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Yes that works. But if we want a consistent node to allocate from (and > avoid the fallbacks) then we need this patch. I think this is up to those > needing memoryless nodes to figure out what semantics they need.
I'm not following what you're saying. Are you saying that we need to spread numa_mem_id() all over the place for GFP_THISNODE users on memless nodes? There aren't that many users of GFP_THISNODE. Wouldn't it make far more sense to just change them? Or just introduce a new GFP flag GFP_CLOSE_OR_BUST which allows falling back to the nearest local node for memless nodes. There's no reason to leak this information outside allocator proper. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
