[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080603144054.973284bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:40:54 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, clameter@....com,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmallocinfo: Add NUMA informations
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:37:25 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> [PATCH] vmallocinfo: Add NUMA informations
Using multipart-mixed MIME makes it a bit hard to handle and reply to a
patch.
> Christoph recently added /proc/vmallocinfo file to get information about
> vmalloc allocations.
>
> This patch adds NUMA specific information, giving number of pages
> allocated on each memory node.
>
> This should help to check that vmalloc() is able to respect NUMA policies.
>
> Example of output on a four nodes machine (one cpu per node)
>
> 1) network hash tables are evenly spreaded on four nodes (OK)
> (Same point for inodes and dentries hash tables)
> 2) iptables tables (x_tables) are correctly allocated on each cpu node
> (OK).
> 3) sys_swapon() allocates its memory from one node only.
> 4) each loaded module is using memory on one node.
>
> Sysadmins could tune their setup to change points 3) and 4) if necessary.
>
> grep "pages=" /proc/vmallocinfo
> 0xffffc20000000000-0xffffc20000201000 2101248
> alloc_large_system_hash+0x204/0x2c0 pages=512 vmalloc N0=128 N1=128
> N2=128 N3=128
> 0xffffc20000201000-0xffffc20000302000 1052672
> alloc_large_system_hash+0x204/0x2c0 pages=256 vmalloc N0=64 N1=64 N2=64
> N3=64
Yet it did nothing to prevent massive wordwrapping in the changelog :(
> 0xffffc20004904000-0xffffc20004bec000 3047424 sys_swapon+0x640/0xac0
> pages=743 vmalloc vpages N0=743
> 0xffffffffa0000000-0xffffffffa000f000 61440
> sys_init_module+0xc27/0x1d00 pages=14 vmalloc N1=14
> 0xffffffffa000f000-0xffffffffa0014000 20480
> sys_init_module+0xc27/0x1d00 pages=4 vmalloc N0=4
> 0xffffffffa0014000-0xffffffffa0017000 12288
> sys_init_module+0xc27/0x1d00 pages=2 vmalloc N0=2
> 0xffffffffa0017000-0xffffffffa0022000 45056
> sys_init_module+0xc27/0x1d00 pages=10 vmalloc N1=10
> 0xffffffffa0022000-0xffffffffa0028000 24576
> sys_init_module+0xc27/0x1d00 pages=5 vmalloc N3=5
akpm:/usr/src/25> grep -ri vmallocinfo Documentation
akpm:/usr/src/25>
Sigh.
>
> [vmallocinfo_numa.patch text/plain (944B)]
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 6e45b0f..d2bbd85 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -931,6 +931,27 @@ static void s_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> read_unlock(&vmlist_lock);
> }
>
> +static void show_numa_infos(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_struct *v)
"show_numa_info" would be more grammatical.
> +{
> + if (NUMA_BUILD) {
> + unsigned int *counters, nr;
> +
> + counters = kzalloc(nr_node_ids * sizeof(unsigned int),
This is kcalloc(). If you like that sorts of thing - I think kcalloc()
is pretty pointless personally.
> + GFP_KERNEL);
We're running under read_lock(&vmlist_lock) here, aren't we? If so,
please tape Documentation/SubmitChecklist to the bathroom door. If
not, what prevents *v from vanishing?
Do we actually need dynamic allocation here? There's a small,
constant, known-at-compile-time upper bound to the number of nodes IDs?
> + if (!counters)
> + return;
Will this just lock up until some memory comes free?
> + for (nr = 0; nr < v->nr_pages; nr++)
> + counters[page_to_nid(v->pages[nr])]++;
> +
> + for_each_node_state(nr, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
> + if (counters[nr])
> + seq_printf(m, " N%u=%u", nr, counters[nr]);
> +
> + kfree(counters);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int s_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> {
> struct vm_struct *v = p;
> @@ -967,6 +988,7 @@ static int s_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> if (v->flags & VM_VPAGES)
> seq_printf(m, " vpages");
>
> + show_numa_infos(m, v);
> seq_putc(m, '\n');
> return 0;
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists