[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEP_g=9JB2GptbZn9ayTPRGPbuOvVujCQ1Hui7fOijUX10HURg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 18:01:06 -0700
From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme@...ira.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovs: do not allocate memory from offline numa node
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 06:59 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>> On 10/02/2015 12:18 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>> When openvswitch tries allocate memory from offline numa node 0:
>>> stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
>>> 0)
>>> It catches VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid))
>>> [ replaced with VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid)) recently ] in linux/gfp.h
>>> This patch disables numa affinity in this case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>>> index f2ea83ba4763..c7f74aab34b9 100644
>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
>>> @@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ struct sw_flow *ovs_flow_alloc(void)
>>>
>>> /* Initialize the default stat node. */
>>> stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache,
>>> - GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
>>> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
>>> + node_online(0) ? 0 : NUMA_NO_NODE);
>>
>>
>> Stupid question: can node 0 become offline between this check, and the
>> VM_WARN_ON? :) BTW what kind of system has node 0 offline?
>
>
> Another question to ask would be is it possible for node 0 to be online, but
> be a memoryless node?
>
> I would say you are better off just making this call kmem_cache_alloc. I
> don't see anything that indicates the memory has to come from node 0, so
> adding the extra overhead doesn't provide any value.
I agree that this at least makes me wonder, though I actually have
concerns in the opposite direction - I see assumptions about this
being on node 0 in net/openvswitch/flow.c.
Jarno, since you original wrote this code, can you take a look to see
if everything still makes sense?
--
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