* Vlastimil Babka [off-list ref] [2020-03-19 15:10:19]:

On 3/19/20 3:05 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:

quoted

* Vlastimil Babka [off-list ref] [2020-03-19 14:47:58]:

quoted

----8<----

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 17dc00e33115..7113b1f9cd77 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c

@@ -1973,8 +1973,6 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node,

 	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
 		searchnode = numa_mem_id();
-	else if (!node_present_pages(node))
-		searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node);

 	object = get_partial_node(s, get_node(s, searchnode), c, flags);

Are we okay with passing a node to get_partial_node with !NUMA_NO_NODE and
!N_MEMORY including possible nodes?

No, but AFAICS, such node values are already handled in ___slab_alloc, and
cannot reach get_partial(). If you see something I missed, please do tell.

Ah I probably got confused with your previous version where
alloc_slab_page() was modified. I see no problems with this version.

Sorry for the noise.

A question just for my better understanding,
How worse would it be to set node to numa_mem_id() instead of NUMA_NODE_ID
when the current node is !N_NORMAL_MEMORY?

quoted

quoted

 	if (object || node != NUMA_NO_NODE)

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju