Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756913Ab2E3Vjb (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:39:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:47700 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754266Ab2E3Vja (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2012 17:39:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:39:28 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Peter Zijlstra cc: "Luck, Tony" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't try allocating memory from offline nodes In-Reply-To: <1338371057.26856.226.camel@twins> Message-ID: References: <4fc507a211523c4a14@agluck-desktop.sc.intel.com> <1338371057.26856.226.camel@twins> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1555 Lines: 38 On Wed, 30 May 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 20:21 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2012, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched/core.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched/core.c > > > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched/core.c > > > @@ -6449,7 +6449,7 @@ static void sched_init_numa(void) > > > return; > > > > > > for (j = 0; j < nr_node_ids; j++) { > > > - struct cpumask *mask = kzalloc_node(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL, j); > > > + struct cpumask *mask = kzalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); > > > if (!mask) > > > return; > > > > > > > It's definitely better if we can allocate on the node, though, so perhaps > > do the same thing that I did in > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133778739503111 by doing > > kzalloc_node(..., node_online(j) ? j : NUMA_NO_NODE)? > > This data isn't used overly much, only when rebuilding the sched > domains, so its not performance critical. I only used per-node > allocations because it seemed the right thing to do. If it doesn't work, > I wouldn't bother with making it more complex. > Ok, if you don't think these cpumasks need locality for performance, then Acked-by: David Rientjes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/