[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54EE60FC.7000909@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:55:40 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2 for-4.0] mm, thp: really limit transparent hugepage
allocation to local node
On 25.2.2015 22:24, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>> alloc_pages_preferred_node() variant, change the exact_node() variant to pass
>> __GFP_THISNODE, and audit and adjust all callers accordingly.
>>
> Sounds like that should be done as part of a cleanup after the 4.0 issues
> are addressed. alloc_pages_exact_node() does seem to suggest that we want
> exactly that node, implying __GFP_THISNODE behavior already, so it would
> be good to avoid having this come up again in the future.
Oh lovely, just found out that there's alloc_pages_node which should be the
preferred-only version, but in fact does not differ from
alloc_pages_exact_node
in any relevant way. I agree we should do some larger cleanup for next
version.
>> Also, you pass __GFP_NOWARN but that should be covered by GFP_TRANSHUGE
>> already. Of course, nothing guarantees that hugepage == true implies that gfp
>> == GFP_TRANSHUGE... but current in-tree callers conform to that.
>>
> Ah, good point, and it includes __GFP_NORETRY as well which means that
> this patch is busted. It won't try compaction or direct reclaim in the
> page allocator slowpath because of this:
>
> /*
> * GFP_THISNODE (meaning __GFP_THISNODE, __GFP_NORETRY and
> * __GFP_NOWARN set) should not cause reclaim since the subsystem
> * (f.e. slab) using GFP_THISNODE may choose to trigger reclaim
> * using a larger set of nodes after it has established that the
> * allowed per node queues are empty and that nodes are
> * over allocated.
> */
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) &&
> (gfp_mask & GFP_THISNODE) == GFP_THISNODE)
> goto nopage;
>
> Hmm. It would be disappointing to have to pass the nodemask of the exact
> node that we want to allocate from into the page allocator to avoid using
> __GFP_THISNODE.
Yeah.
>
> There's a sneaky way around it by just removing __GFP_NORETRY from
> GFP_TRANSHUGE so the condition above fails and since the page allocator
> won't retry for such a high-order allocation, but that probably just
> papers over this stuff too much already. I think what we want to do is
Alternatively alloc_pages_exact_node() adds __GFP_THISNODE just to
node_zonelist() call and not to __alloc_pages() gfp_mask proper? Unless
__GFP_THISNODE
was given *also* in the incoming gfp_mask, this should give us the right
combination?
But it's also subtle....
> cause the slab allocators to not use __GFP_WAIT if they want to avoid
> reclaim.
Yes, the fewer subtle heuristics we have that include combinations of
flags (*cough*
GFP_TRANSHUGE *cough*), the better.
> This is probably going to be a much more invasive patch than originally
> thought.
Right, we might be changing behavior not just for slab allocators, but
also others using such
combination of flags.
--
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