On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:
quoted
Acked-by: Kiran Patil <redacted>
Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption
from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?
David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch
is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline.
If I was asked this question I would respond
The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort. If the unlikely
race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the
overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance. The
existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue.
But I'm not the person proposing the patch. Please don't just ignore
reviewer comments!