[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dfb0f20f-7a2d-3228-5c0d-9da4793f575c@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:12:00 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] hugetlbfs: don't retry when pool page allocations
start to fail
On 8/5/19 2:28 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/3/19 12:39 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> When allocating hugetlbfs pool pages via /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages,
>> the pages will be interleaved between all nodes of the system. If
>> nodes are not equal, it is quite possible for one node to fill up
>> before the others. When this happens, the code still attempts to
>> allocate pages from the full node. This results in calls to direct
>> reclaim and compaction which slow things down considerably.
>>
>> When allocating pool pages, note the state of the previous allocation
>> for each node. If previous allocation failed, do not use the
>> aggressive retry algorithm on successive attempts. The allocation
>> will still succeed if there is memory available, but it will not try
>> as hard to free up memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
>
> Looks like only part of the (agreed with) suggestions were implemented?
My bad, I pulled in the wrong patch.
> - set_max_huge_pages() returns -ENOMEM if nodemask can't be allocated,
> but hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages() doesn't.
That is somewhat intentional. The calling context of the two routines is
significantly different. hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages is called at boot time
to handle command line parameters. And, hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages does not
return a value as it is of type void.
We 'could' print out a warning here. But, if we can't allocate a node mask
I am pretty sure we will not be able to boot. I will add a comment.
> - there's still __GFP_NORETRY in nodemask allocations
> - (cosmetics) Mel pointed out that NODEMASK_FREE() works fine with NULL
> pointers
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists