[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150910220857.GN8114@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:08:57 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com,
mika.j.penttila@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, hpa@...or.com,
yasu.isimatu@...il.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
gongzhaogang@...pur.com, qiaonuohan@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86, gfp: Cache best near node for memory
allocation.
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:02:31PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Also, shouldn't kmalloc_node() or any public allocator fall back
> > automatically to a near node w/o GFP_THISNODE? Why is this failing at
> > all? I get that cpu id -> node id mapping changing messes up the
> > locality but allocations shouldn't fail, right?
>
> Without a node specification allocations are subject to various
> constraints and memory policies. It is not simply going to the next node.
> The memory load may require spreading out the allocations over multiple
> nodes, the app may have specified which nodes are to be used etc etc.
Yeah, sure, but even w/ node specified, it shouldn't fail unless
THISNODE, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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