From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BC636B0011 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DC1B151.7010300@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 13:04:33 -0700 From: Andi Kleen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allocate memory cgroup structures in local nodes References: <1304533058-18228-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , Dave Hansen , Balbir Singh , Johannes Weiner > Before that's considered, the order of the arguments to > alloc_pages_exact_node() needs to be fixed. Good point. I'll send another one. This is really misleading BTW. Grumble. Maybe it would be actually better to change the prototype too. > The vmalloc_node() calls ensure that the nid is actually set in >N_HIGH_MEMORY and fails otherwise (we don't fallback to using vmalloc()), >so it looks like the failures for alloc_pages_exact_node() and >vmalloc_node() would be different? Why do we want to fallback for one and >not the other? The right order would be to try everything (alloc_pages + vmalloc) to get it node local, before trying everything else. Right now that's not how it's done. -Andi -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org