From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com (mail-qg0-f45.google.com [209.85.192.45]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD936B0035 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f51so1097358qge.18 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4si4038250qch.19.2014.07.11.08.58.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j107so1150230qga.31 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:58:38 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC Patch V1 07/30] mm: Use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() to support memoryless node Message-ID: <20140711155838.GB30865@htj.dyndns.org> 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> <20140711152156.GB29137@htj.dyndns.org> <20140711153302.GA30865@htj.dyndns.org> 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: 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 On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:55:59AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Where X is the memless node. num_mem_id() on X would return either B > > or C, right? If B or C can't satisfy the allocation, the allocator > > would fallback to A from B and D for C, both of which aren't optimal. > > It should first fall back to C or B respectively, which the allocator > > can't do anymoe because the information is lost when the caller side > > performs numa_mem_id(). > > True but the advantage is that the numa_mem_id() allows the use of a > consitent sort of "local" node which increases allocator performance due > to the abillity to cache objects from that node. But the allocator can do the mapping the same. I really don't see why we'd push the distinction to the individual users. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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