linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: Default to node-ordering on 64-bit NUMA machines

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140905103041.GH17501@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:30:42 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: Default to node-ordering on 64-bit NUMA
 machines

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:29:29AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:51:20AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > I cannot find a good reason to incur a performance penalty on all 64-bit NUMA
> > > > machines in case someone throws a brain damanged TV or graphics card in there.
> > > > This patch defaults to node-ordering on 64-bit NUMA machines. I was tempted
> > > > to make it default everywhere but I understand that some embedded arches may
> > > > be using 32-bit NUMA where I cannot predict the consequences.
> > > 
> > > This patch is a step in the right direction, but I'm not too fond of
> > > further fragmenting this code and where it applies, while leaving all
> > > the complexity from the heuristics and the zonelist building in, just
> > > on spec.  Could we at least remove the heuristics too?  If anybody is
> > > affected by this, they can always override the default on the cmdline.
> > 
> > I see no problem with deleting the heuristics. Default node for 64-bit
> > and default zone for 32-bit sound ok to you?
> 
> Is there a strong reason against defaulting both to node order?  Zone
> ordering, if anything, is a niche application.  We might even be able
> to remove it in the future.  We still have the backup of allowing the
> user to explicitely request zone ordering on the commandline, should
> someone depend on it unexpectedly.

Low memory depletion is the reason to default to zone order on 32-bit
NUMA. If processes on node 0 deplete the Normal zone from normal
activity then other nodes must keep reclaiming from Normal for all kernel
allocations. The problem is worse if CONFIG_HIGHPTE is not set.

A default of node-ordering on 32-bit NUMA increases low memory pressure
leading to increased reclaim and potentially easier to trigger OOM. I
expect this problem was worse in the past when the normal zone could be
filled with dirty pages under writeback.  However low memory pressure is
still enough of a concern that I'm wary of changing the default of 32-bit
NUMA without knowing who even cares about 32-bit NUMA.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/