[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180612152057.GA13364@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:20:57 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, tnowicki@...iumnetworks.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
zhongjiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: avoid alloc memory on offline node
On Tue 12-06-18 16:08:03, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
[...]
> > Well, the standard way to handle memory less NUMA nodes is to simply
> > fallback to the closest NUMA node. We even have an API for that
> > (numa_mem_id).
>
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS node is not enabled on arm64 which means we end
> up returning the original node in the fallback path.
Yes this makes more sense.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists