[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553E0510.9040001@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:44:48 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tj@...nel.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
<hpa@...or.com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<laijs@...fujitsu.com>, <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
<tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/2] gfp: use the best near online node if
the target node is offline
On 2015/04/25 5:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:58:33 +0800 Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the change to the cpu <--> mapping (map the cpu to the physical
>> node for all possible at the boot), the node of cpu may be not present,
>> so we use the best near online node if the node is not present in the low
>> level allocation APIs.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
>> @@ -298,9 +298,31 @@ __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>> return __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> +static int find_near_online_node(int node)
>> +{
>> + int n, val;
>> + int min_val = INT_MAX;
>> + int best_node = -1;
>> +
>> + for_each_online_node(n) {
>> + val = node_distance(node, n);
>> +
>> + if (val < min_val) {
>> + min_val = val;
>> + best_node = n;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return best_node;
>> +}
>
> This should be `inline' if it's in a header file.
>
> But it is far too large to be inlined anyway - please move it to a .c file.
>
> And please document it. A critical thing to describe is how we
> determine whether a node is "near". There are presumably multiple ways
> in which we could decide that a node is "near" (number of hops, minimum
> latency, ...). Which one did you choose, and why?
>
>> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> unsigned int order)
>> {
>> + /* Offline node, use the best near online node */
>> + if (!node_online(nid))
>> + nid = find_near_online_node(nid);
>> +
>> /* Unknown node is current node */
>> if (nid < 0)
>> nid = numa_node_id();
>> @@ -311,7 +333,11 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> unsigned int order)
>> {
>> - VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid));
>> + /* Offline node, use the best near online node */
>> + if (!node_online(nid))
>> + nid = find_near_online_node(nid);
In above VM_BUG_ON(), !node_online(nid) is the bug.
>> +
>> + VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
>>
>> return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
>> }
>
> Ouch. These functions are called very frequently, and adding overhead
> to them is a big deal. And the patch even adds overhead to non-x86
> architectures which don't benefit from it!
>
> Is there no way this problem can be fixed somewhere else? Preferably
> by fixing things up at hotplug time.
I agree. the results should be cached. If necessary, in per-cpu line.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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