From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0D36B0038 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 05:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so130615158pac.2 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 02:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heian.cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id sx6si11507629pbc.55.2015.09.26.02.37.36 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <560666EA.7090109@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:35:38 +0800 From: Tang Chen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86, gfp: Cache best near node for memory allocation. References: <1441859269-25831-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1441859269-25831-4-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150910192935.GI8114@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150910193819.GJ8114@mtj.duckdns.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: Christoph Lameter , Tejun Heo Cc: jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, mika.j.penttila@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, hpa@zytor.com, yasu.isimatu@gmail.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, gongzhaogang@inspur.com, qiaonuohan@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Gu Zheng Hi, Christoph, tj, On 09/11/2015 08:14 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> Why not just update node_data[]->node_zonelist in the first place? >>> Also, what's the synchronization rule here? How are allocators >>> synchronized against node hot [un]plugs? >> Also, shouldn't kmalloc_node() or any public allocator fall back >> automatically to a near node w/o GFP_THISNODE? Why is this failing at >> all? I get that cpu id -> node id mapping changing messes up the >> locality but allocations shouldn't fail, right? Yes. That is the reason we are getting near online node here. > Yes that should occur in the absence of other constraints (mempolicies, > cpusets, cgroups, allocation type). If the constraints do not allow an > allocation then the allocation will fail. > > Also: Are the zonelists setup the right way? zonelist will be rebuilt in __offline_pages() when the zone is not populated any more. Thanks. -- 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