From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757383Ab2KCQgo (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:36:44 -0400 Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.132.50]:60988 "EHLO jacques.telenet-ops.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757237Ab2KCQgl (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:36:41 -0400 Message-ID: <50954818.8050908@acm.org> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:36:40 +0100 From: Bart Van Assche User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121025 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Moyer CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" Subject: Re: [patch,v2 04/10] scsi: allocate scsi_cmnd-s from the device's local numa node References: <1351892763-21325-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <1351892763-21325-5-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1351892763-21325-5-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/02/12 22:45, Jeff Moyer wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > index 2936b44..4db6973 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c > @@ -173,16 +173,20 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(host_cmd_pool_mutex); > * NULL on failure > */ > static struct scsi_cmnd * > -scsi_pool_alloc_command(struct scsi_host_cmd_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask) > +scsi_pool_alloc_command(struct scsi_host_cmd_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp_mask, > + int node) > { > struct scsi_cmnd *cmd; > > - cmd = kmem_cache_zalloc(pool->cmd_slab, gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask); > + cmd = kmem_cache_alloc_node(pool->cmd_slab, > + gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask | __GFP_ZERO, > + node); > if (!cmd) > return NULL; > > - cmd->sense_buffer = kmem_cache_alloc(pool->sense_slab, > - gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask); > + cmd->sense_buffer = kmem_cache_alloc_node(pool->sense_slab, > + gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask | __GFP_ZERO, > + node); It's not clear to me why __GFP_ZERO is added to the allocation flags ? Bart.