From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: Correct alloc_bootmem semantics.
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:28:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120503152841.GA19918@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120425.190034.632638679653622318.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:00:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:46:42 -0700
>
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:10 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> >> @@ -298,13 +298,19 @@ void * __init __alloc_bootmem_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, unsigned long size,
> >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available()))
> >> return kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, pgdat->node_id);
> >>
> >> +again:
> >> ptr = __alloc_memory_core_early(pgdat->node_id, size, align,
> >> goal, -1ULL);
> >> if (ptr)
> >> return ptr;
> >
> > If you want to be consistent to bootmem version.
> >
> > again label should be here instead.
>
> It is merely an artifact of implementation that the bootmem version
> doesn't try to respect the given node if the goal cannot be satisfied,
> and in fact I would classify that as a bug that needs to be fixed.
>
> Therefore, I believe the bootmem case is what needs to be adjusted
> instead.
Now it does: node+goal, goal, node, anywhere
whereas the memblock version of __alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic() also
still does: node+goal, goal, anywhere
Your description suggests that the node should be higher prioritized
than the goal, which I understand as: node+goal, node, anywhere.
Which do we actually want?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-03 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-25 20:10 [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: Correct alloc_bootmem semantics David Miller
2012-04-25 20:12 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-25 22:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-04-25 23:00 ` David Miller
2012-04-25 23:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-04-25 23:15 ` David Miller
2012-05-03 15:28 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2012-05-03 17:04 ` David Miller
2012-05-04 9:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-05-04 14:46 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120503152841.GA19918@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.