[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290984712.29196.100.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:51:51 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: NUMA aware kthread_create_on_cpu()
Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010 à 23:40 +0100, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 08:33:53PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > @@ -101,7 +103,15 @@ static int kthread(void *_create)
> > static void create_kthread(struct kthread_create_info *create)
> > {
> > int pid;
> > -
> > + static int last_cpu_pref = -1;
> > +
> > + if (create->cpu != last_cpu_pref) {
>
> Is that actually thread-safe?
Yes, we use one dedicated task to create all kthreads.
This task runs kthreadd(void *unused) in kernel/kthread.c
This only duty is to create tasks.
>
> > +void numa_cpubind_policy(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + nodemask_t mask;
> > +
> > + init_nodemask_of_node(&mask, cpu_to_node(cpu));
> > + do_set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND, 0, &mask);
>
> You don't want bind, you want preferred, otherwise this
> will explode if the node is empty.
>
OK thanks, I'll test the patch with BIND or PREFERRED on x86_32 mode
since I have one machine with two sockets, 2GB on each socket, so 2nd
node only have HIGHMEM, no LOWMEM.
> Also this messes up the policy of the caller process. You really
> need to save/restore it.
Well, caller process duty is to create kthreads in a loop.
>
> And if the slab is configured for slab interleaving in
> the cpuset this will be ignored I think.
>
> Also I think the slab fast path ignores the policy anyways,
> the policy only acts when slab has to grab new pages.
> Are you sure this works at all?
>
It works on x86 at least, I tested this patch and got correct stacks for
pktgen and ksoftirqd kthreads for sure.
> It would be probably better to pass through the node
> to the low level allocation functions and use them
> there directly.
>
It would be difficult, because do_fork() is arch dependant
> Problem is that this ends up in architecture specific code
> for the stack, so may be a larger patch.
I suggest arches that need slab to allocate kthread stacks do the
appropriate changes, because I am not able to make them myself.
On x86, we use page allocator only, so NUMA mempolicy is used.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists