[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1401290957350.23856@nuc>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:58:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: ensure locality of task_struct allocations
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> > index b5ae3ee..8573e4e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ int tsk_fork_get_node(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > if (tsk == kthreadd_task)
> > return tsk->pref_node_fork;
> > #endif
> > - return numa_node_id();
> > + return numa_mem_id();
>
> I'm wondering why return NUMA_NO_NODE wouldn't have the same effect and
> prefer the local node?
>
The idea here seems to be that the allocation may occur from a cpu that is
different from where the process will run later on.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists