On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:58:34PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote: > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > index fd8011e..a12a22f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > @@ -2713,7 +2713,10 @@ struct intel_uncore_box *uncore_alloc_box(struct > intel_uncore_type *type, int cp > > size = sizeof(*box) + type->num_shared_regs * sizeof(struct > intel_uncore_extra_reg); > > - box = kzalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu)); > + if (cpu < 0) > + box = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); > + else > + box = kzalloc_node(size, GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu)); > if (!box) > return NULL;
I believe -1 is a valid node number for all allocators, in which case they fall back to the current node. > > @@ -3031,7 +3034,7 @@ static int uncore_validate_group(struct > intel_uncore_pmu *pmu, > struct intel_uncore_box *fake_box; > int ret = -EINVAL, n; > > - fake_box = uncore_alloc_box(pmu->type, smp_processor_id()); > + fake_box = uncore_alloc_box(pmu->type, -1); > if (!fake_box) > return -ENOMEM; > Yes, much better indeed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
