[PATCH] mm: rename and document alloc_pages_exact_node
cl at linux.com
Fri Jul 24 00:11:53 AEST 2015
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, David Rientjes wrote:
> Eek, yeah, that does look bad. I'm not even sure the
> if (nid < 0)
> nid = numa_node_id();
> is correct; I think this should be comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE rather than
> all negative numbers, otherwise we silently ignore overflow and nobody
> ever knows.
Comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE would be better. Also use numa_mem_id() instead
to support memoryless nodes better?
> The only possible downside would be existing users of
> alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a
> VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a
> VM_WARN_ON() and eventually fixed up because it's nonsensical.
> VM_BUG_ON() here should be avoided.
The offline node thing could be addresses by using numa_mem_id()?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev