[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120523152011.3b581761.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:20:11 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs not interleaving properly
On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:28:21 +0000
Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com> wrote:
>
> When tmpfs has the memory policy interleaved it always starts allocating at each file at node 0.
> When there are many small files the lower nodes fill up disproportionately.
> My proposed solution is to start a file at a randomly chosen node.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct shmem_inode_info {
> char *symlink; /* unswappable short symlink */
> };
> struct shared_policy policy; /* NUMA memory alloc policy */
> + int node_offset; /* bias for interleaved nodes */
> struct list_head swaplist; /* chain of maybes on swap */
> struct list_head xattr_list; /* list of shmem_xattr */
> struct inode vfs_inode;
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index f99ff3e..58ef512 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>
> /* Create a pseudo vma that just contains the policy */
> pvma.vm_start = 0;
> - pvma.vm_pgoff = index;
> + pvma.vm_pgoff = index + info->node_offset;
> pvma.vm_ops = NULL;
> pvma.vm_policy = mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&info->policy, index);
>
> @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct inode *shmem_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, const struct inode
> inode->i_fop = &shmem_file_operations;
> mpol_shared_policy_init(&info->policy,
> shmem_get_sbmpol(sbinfo));
> + info->node_offset = node_random(&node_online_map);
> break;
> case S_IFDIR:
> inc_nlink(inode);
The patch seems a bit arbitrary and hacky. It would have helped if you
had fully described how it works, and why this implementation was
chosen.
- Why alter (actually, lie about!) the offset-into-file? Could we
have similarly perturbed the address arg to alloc_page_vma() to do
the spreading?
- The patch is dependent upon MPOL_INTERLEAVE being in effect, isn't
it? How do we guarantee that it is in force here?
- We look up the policy via mpol_shared_policy_lookup() using the
unperturbed index. Why? Should we be using index+info->node_offset
there?
--
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