[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812051058440.240991@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:00:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/alloc: fallback to first node if the wanted node
offline
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > And rather than using first_online_node, would next_online_node() work?
> > >
> > What is the gain? Is it for memory pressure on node0?
> >
> Maybe I got your point now. Do you try to give a cheap assumption on
> nearest neigh of this node?
>
It's likely better than first_online_node, but probably going to be the
same based on the node ids that you have reported since the nodemask will
simply wrap around back to the first node.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists