From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:20:37 -0700
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to
 better support memoryless node
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1508191717450.30666@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1439781546-7217-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1439781546-7217-6-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <4197C471DCF8714FBA1FE32565271C148FFFF4D3@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1508191717450.30666@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Message-ID: <20151008132037.fc3887da0818e7d011cb752f@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
List-ID: <intel-wired-lan.osuosl.org>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:
> 
> > Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@intel.com>
> 
> Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption 
> from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?

David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch
is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline.

If I was asked this question I would respond

  The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort.  If the unlikely
  race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the
  overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance.  The
  existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue.

But I'm not the person proposing the patch.  Please don't just ignore
reviewer comments!