| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:23:23 +0800
From: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm/memblock: make full utilization of numa info
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:58 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 08:34:05PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > There are numa machines with memory-less node. When allocating memory for
> > the memory-less node, memblock allocator falls back to 'Node 0' without fully
> > utilizing the nearest node. This hurts the performance, especially for per
> > cpu section. Suppressing this defect by building the full node fall back
> > info for memblock allocator, like what we have done for page allocator.
>
> Is it really necessary to build full node fallback info for memblock and
> then rebuild it again for the page allocator?
>
Do you mean building the full node fallback info once, and share it by
both memblock and page allocator? If it is, then node online/offline
is the corner case to block this design.
> I think it should be possible to split parts of build_all_zonelists_init()
> that do not touch per-cpu areas into a separate function and call that
> function after topology detection. Then it would be possible to use
> local_memory_node() when calling memblock.
>
Yes, this is one way but may be with higher pay of changing the code.
I will try it.
Thank your for your suggestion.
Best regards,
Pingfan
> > Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
> > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> > CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > CC: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> > CC: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> > CC: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> > CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > CC: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
> > CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> > CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> > CC: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> > CC: Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>
> > CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > ---
> > include/linux/memblock.h | 3 +++
> > mm/memblock.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> > index 64c41cf..ee999c5 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> > @@ -342,6 +342,9 @@ void *memblock_alloc_try_nid_nopanic(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> > void *memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> > phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr,
> > int nid);
> > +extern int build_node_order(int *node_oder_array, int sz,
> > + int local_node, nodemask_t *used_mask);
> > +void memblock_build_node_order(void);
> >
> > static inline void * __init memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align)
> > {
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index 022d4cb..cf78850 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -1338,6 +1338,47 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t ali
> > return memblock_alloc_base(size, align, MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE);
> > }
> >
> > +static int **node_fallback __initdata;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * build_node_order() relies on cpumask_of_node(), hence arch should set up
> > + * cpumask before calling this func.
> > + */
> > +void __init memblock_build_node_order(void)
> > +{
> > + int nid, i;
> > + nodemask_t used_mask;
> > +
> > + node_fallback = memblock_alloc(MAX_NUMNODES * sizeof(int *),
> > + sizeof(int *));
> > + for_each_online_node(nid) {
> > + node_fallback[nid] = memblock_alloc(
> > + num_online_nodes() * sizeof(int), sizeof(int));
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_online_nodes(); i++)
> > + node_fallback[nid][i] = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for_each_online_node(nid) {
> > + nodes_clear(used_mask);
> > + node_set(nid, used_mask);
> > + build_node_order(node_fallback[nid], num_online_nodes(),
> > + nid, &used_mask);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __init memblock_free_node_order(void)
> > +{
> > + int nid;
> > +
> > + if (!node_fallback)
> > + return;
> > + for_each_online_node(nid)
> > + memblock_free(__pa(node_fallback[nid]),
> > + num_online_nodes() * sizeof(int));
> > + memblock_free(__pa(node_fallback), MAX_NUMNODES * sizeof(int *));
> > + node_fallback = NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * memblock_alloc_internal - allocate boot memory block
> > * @size: size of memory block to be allocated in bytes
> > @@ -1370,6 +1411,7 @@ static void * __init memblock_alloc_internal(
> > {
> > phys_addr_t alloc;
> > void *ptr;
> > + int node;
> > enum memblock_flags flags = choose_memblock_flags();
> >
> > if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
> > @@ -1397,11 +1439,26 @@ static void * __init memblock_alloc_internal(
> > goto done;
> >
> > if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> > - alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr,
> > - max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> > - flags);
> > - if (alloc && !memblock_reserve(alloc, size))
> > - goto done;
> > + if (!node_fallback) {
> > + alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align,
> > + min_addr, max_addr,
> > + NUMA_NO_NODE, flags);
> > + if (alloc && !memblock_reserve(alloc, size))
> > + goto done;
> > + } else {
> > + int i;
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_online_nodes(); i++) {
> > + node = node_fallback[nid][i];
> > + /* fallback list has all memory nodes */
> > + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > + break;
> > + alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size,
> > + align, min_addr, max_addr,
> > + node, flags);
> > + if (alloc && !memblock_reserve(alloc, size))
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > if (min_addr) {
> > @@ -1969,6 +2026,7 @@ unsigned long __init memblock_free_all(void)
> >
> > reset_all_zones_managed_pages();
> >
> > + memblock_free_node_order();
> > pages = free_low_memory_core_early();
> > totalram_pages_add(pages);
> >
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists