From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9099A6B01E3 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4BC65237.5080408@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:39:35 +0900 From: Tejun Heo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages References: <9918f566ab0259356cded31fd1dd80da6cae0c2b.1271171877.git.minchan.kim@gmail.com> <20100413154820.GC25756@csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20100413154820.GC25756@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Bob Liu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter List-ID: Hello, On 04/14/2010 12:48 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > and the mapping table on x86 at least is based on possible CPUs in > init_cpu_to_node() leaves the mapping as 0 if the APIC is bad or the numa > node is reported in apicid_to_node as -1. It would appear on power that > the node will be 0 for possible CPUs as well. > > Hence, I believe this to be safe but a confirmation from Tejun would be > nice. I would continue digging but this looks like an initialisation path > so I'll move on to the next patch rather than spending more time. This being a pretty cold path, I don't really see much benefit in converting it to alloc_pages_node_exact(). It ain't gonna make any difference. I'd rather stay with the safer / boring one unless there's a pressing reason to convert. 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