From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:01:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Memoryless nodes and kworker Message-Id: <20140718180110.GD13012@htj.dyndns.org> List-Id: References: <20140717230923.GA32660@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140718112039.GA8383@htj.dyndns.org> <20140718180008.GC13012@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20140718180008.GC13012@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nish Aravamudan Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , Wanpeng Li , Jiang Liu , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Linux Memory Management List , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 02:00:08PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > This isn't a huge issue but it shows that this is the wrong layer to > deal with this issue. Let the allocators express where they are. ^ allocator users > Choosing and falling back belong to the memory allocator. That's the > only place which has all the information that's necessary and those > details must be contained there. Please don't leak it to memory > allocator users. -- tejun