On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:34:31PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> numa_mem_id() is able to handle allocation from CPUs on memory-less nodes,
> so it's a more robust fallback than the currently used numa_node_id().
Won't it fall through to the next closest memory node in the zonelist
anyway? Is th
xisting buggy callers, change the VM_BUG_ON
> in __alloc_pages_node() to VM_WARN_ON.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka
> Acked-by: David Rientjes
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@
istoph Lameter
> Cc: Pekka Enberg
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim
> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi
> Cc: Tony Luck
> Cc: Fenghua Yu
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Cc: Paul Mackerras
> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman
> Cc: Gleb Natapov
> Cc: Paolo Bo
Hi Rik,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:40:17AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 07:57 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 22/04/14 12:55, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >> While preparing/testing some KVM on s390 patches for the next merge window
> >> (target is kvm/next which is based
.
>
> According to /proc/vmstat the system is now in direct reclaim almost all the
> time for every page fault (more than 10x more direct reclaims than kswap
> reclaims)
> With the patch being reverted everything is fine again.
Ouch. Yes, I think we have to revert this for now.
Ho
