[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140527145708.GA21238@amt.cnet>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:57:08 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] page_alloc: skip cpuset enforcement for lower zone
allocations
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:53:52AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:21:32AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 May 2014, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > Zone specific allocations, such as GFP_DMA32, should not be restricted
> > > to cpusets allowed node list: the zones which such allocations demand
> > > might be contained in particular nodes outside the cpuset node list.
> > >
> > > The alternative would be to not perform such allocations from
> > > applications which are cpuset restricted, which is unrealistic.
> > >
> > > Fixes KVM's alloc_page(gfp_mask=GFP_DMA32) with cpuset as explained.
> >
> > Memory policies are only applied to a specific zone so this is not
> > unprecedented. However, if a user wants to limit allocation to a specific
> > node and there is no DMA memory there then may be that is a operator
> > error? After all the application will be using memory from a node that the
> > operator explicitly wanted not to be used.
>
> Ok here is the use-case:
>
> - machine contains driver which requires zone specific memory (such as
> KVM, which requires root pagetable at paddr < 4GB).
>
> - user wants to limit allocation of application to nodeX, and nodeX has
> no memory < 4GB.
>
> How would you solve that? Options:
>
> 1) force admin to allow allocation from node(s) which contain 0-4GB
> range, which unfortunately would allow every allocation, including
> ones which are not restricted to particular nodes, to be performed
> there.
>
> or
>
> 2) allow zone specific allocations to bypass memory policies.
>
> It seems 2) is the best option (and there is precedent for it).
>
> > There is also the hardwall flag. I think its ok to allocate outside of the
> > cpuset if that flag is not set. However, if it is set then any attempt to
> > alloc outside of the cpuset should fail.
>
> GFP_ATOMIC bypasses hardwall:
>
> * The second pass through get_page_from_freelist() doesn't even call
> * here for GFP_ATOMIC calls. For those calls, the __alloc_pages()
> * variable 'wait' is not set, and the bit ALLOC_CPUSET is not set
> * in alloc_flags. That logic and the checks below have the combined
> * affect that:
> * in_interrupt - any node ok (current task context irrelevant)
> * GFP_ATOMIC - any node ok
> * TIF_MEMDIE - any node ok
> * GFP_KERNEL - any node in enclosing hardwalled cpuset ok
> * GFP_USER - only nodes in current tasks mems allowed ok.
Thats softwall nevermind.
--
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