On 10.04.2015 [14:37:19 +0300], Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 10.04.2015 01:58, Tanisha Aravamudan wrote:
> >On 09.04.2015 [07:27:28 +0300], Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >>On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan
> >> wrote:
> >>>On
On 08.04.2015 [20:04:04 +0300], Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 08.04.2015 19:59, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >Node 0 might be offline as well as any other numa node,
> >in this case kernel cannot handle memory allocation and crashes.
Isn't the bug that numa_node_id() returned an offline node
On 28.07.2014 [07:30:40 -0600], Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:52:41 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan
> wrote:
> > On 11.07.2014 [15:37:39 +0800], Jiang Liu wrote:
> > > When CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is enabled, cpu_to_node()/numa_node_id()
> > > may ret
On 11.07.2014 [15:37:39 +0800], Jiang Liu wrote:
> When CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is enabled, cpu_to_node()/numa_node_id()
> may return a node without memory, and later cause system failure/panic
> when calling kmalloc_node() and friends with returned node id.
> So use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id()