From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:21:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC Patch V1 07/30] mm: Use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() to support memoryless node Message-Id: <20140711152156.GB29137@htj.dyndns.org> List-Id: References: <1405064267-11678-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <1405064267-11678-8-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <20140711144205.GA27706@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Jiang Liu , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Rik van Riel , Wanpeng Li , Zhang Yanfei , Catalin Marinas , Jianyu Zhan , malc , Joonsoo Kim , Fabian Frederick , Tony Luck , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:13:57AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Allocators typically fall back but they wont in some cases if you say > that you want memory from a particular node. A GFP_THISNODE would force a > failure of the alloc. In other cases it should fall back. I am not sure > that all allocations obey these conventions though. But, GFP_THISNODE + numa_mem_id() is identical to numa_node_id() + nearest node with memory fallback. Is there any case where the user would actually want to always fail if it's on the memless node? Even if that's the case, there's no reason to burden everyone with this distinction. Most users just wanna say "I'm on this node. Please allocate considering that". There's nothing wrong with using numa_node_id() for that. Thanks. -- tejun