From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com (mail-oa0-f43.google.com [209.85.219.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC676B0035 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id g12so1341279oah.30 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com. [32.97.110.160]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w10si3058867obx.120.2014.03.13.09.51.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:51:24 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999401FF003E for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:51:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s2DGpK6E10879302 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:51:20 +0100 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s2DGpK9r011842 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:51:20 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:51:00 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] topology: support node_numa_mem() for determining the fallback node Message-ID: <20140313165100.GD22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140207054819.GC28952@lge.com> <20140210191321.GD1558@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140211074159.GB27870@lge.com> <20140217065257.GD3468@lge.com> <20140224050851.GB14814@lge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , Han Pingtian , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Matt Mackall , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Wanpeng Li On 24.02.2014 [13:54:35 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > It will not common get there because of the tracking. Instead a per cpu > > > object will be used. > > > > get_partial_node() always fails even if there are some partial slab on > > > > memoryless node's neareast node. > > > > > > Correct and that leads to a page allocator action whereupon the node will > > > be marked as empty. > > > > Why do we need to request to a page allocator if there is partial slab? > > Checking whether node is memoryless or not is really easy, so we don't need > > to skip this. To skip this is suboptimal solution. > > The page allocator action is also used to determine to which other node we > should fall back if the node is empty. So we need to call the page > allocator when the per cpu slab is exhaused with the node of the > memoryless node to get memory from the proper fallback node. Where do we stand with these patches? I feel like no resolution was really found... Thanks, Nish -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org