[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56175637.50102@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:52:55 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
"Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@...el.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [Patch V3 5/9] i40e: Use numa_mem_id() to
better support memoryless node
On 2015/10/9 4:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patil, Kiran wrote:
>>
>>> Acked-by: Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
>>
>> Where's the call to preempt_disable() to prevent kernels with preemption
>> from making numa_node_id() invalid during this iteration?
>
> David asked this question twice, received no answer and now the patch
> is in the maintainer tree, destined for mainline.
>
> If I was asked this question I would respond
>
> The use of numa_mem_id() is racy and best-effort. If the unlikely
> race occurs, the memory allocation will occur on the wrong node, the
> overall result being very slightly suboptimal performance. The
> existing use of numa_node_id() suffers from the same issue.
>
> But I'm not the person proposing the patch. Please don't just ignore
> reviewer comments!
Hi Andrew,
Apologize for the slow response due to personal reasons!
And thanks for answering the question from David. To be honest,
I didn't know how to answer this question before. Actually this
question has puzzled me for a long time when dealing with memory
hot-removal. For normal cases, it only causes sub-optimal memory
allocation if schedule event happens between querying NUMA node id
and calling alloc_pages_node(). But what happens if system run into
following execution sequence?
1) node = numa_mem_id();
2) memory hot-removal event triggers
2.1) remove affected memory
2.2) reset pgdat to zero if node becomes empty after memory removal
3) alloc_pages_node(), which may access zero-ed pgdat structure.
I haven't found a mechanism to protect system from above sequence yet,
so puzzled for a long time already:(. Does stop_machine() protect
system from such a execution sequence?
Thanks!
Gerry
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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