On 3/17/20 12:53 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:56:28PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: >> Case 1: 2 node NUMA, node0 empty >> ================================ >> # numactl -H >> available: 2 nodes (0-1) >> node 0 cpus: >> node 0 size: 0 MB >> node 0 free: 0 MB >> node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> node 1 size: 16294 MB >> node 1 free: 15453 MB >> node distances: >> node 0 1 >> 0: 10 40 >> 1: 40 10 >> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c >> index 17dc00e33115..888e4d245444 100644 >> --- a/mm/slub.c >> +++ b/mm/slub.c >> @@ -1971,10 +1971,8 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t >> flags, int node, >> void *object; >> int searchnode = node; >> >> - if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) >> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || !node_present_pages(node)) >> searchnode = numa_mem_id(); >> - else if (!node_present_pages(node)) >> - searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node); > > For the above topology, I see this: > > node_to_mem_node(1) = 1 > node_to_mem_node(0) = 0 > node_to_mem_node(NUMA_NO_NODE) = 0 > > Looks like the last two cases (returning memory-less node 0) is the > problem here?
I wonder why do you get a memory leak while Sachin in the same situation [1] gets a crash? I don't understand anything anymore. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/3381cd91-ab3d-4773-ba04-e7a072a63...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > Regards, > Bharata. > >
