From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFFF6B0088 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 04:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hm4so1576742wib.7 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dl5si4481609wib.47.2014.02.20.01.50.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:50:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:50:38 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: exclude memory less nodes from zone_reclaim Message-ID: <20140220095038.GB12451@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20140219082313.GB14783@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1392829383-4125-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20140219175339.GG27108@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140219230558.GA28062@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140219230558.GA28062@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Wed 19-02-14 15:05:58, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 19.02.2014 [13:56:00 -0800], David Rientjes wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > index 3e953f07edb0..4a44bdc7a8cf 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > > @@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allows_reclaim(int nid) > > > > { > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > - for_each_online_node(i) > > > > + for_each_node_state(i, N_HIGH_MEMORY) > > > > if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE) > > > > node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes); > > > > else > > > > @@ -4901,7 +4901,8 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size, > > > > > > > > pgdat->node_id = nid; > > > > pgdat->node_start_pfn = node_start_pfn; > > > > - init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid); > > > > + if (node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY)) > > > > + init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid); > > > > > > I'm still new to this code, but isn't this saying that if a node has no > > > memory, then it shouldn't reclaim from any node? But, for a memoryless > > > node to ensure progress later if reclaim is necessary, it *must* reclaim > > > from other nodes? So wouldn't we want to set reclaim_nodes() in that > > > case to node_states[N_MEMORY]? > > > > > > > The only time when pgdat->reclaim_nodes or zone_reclaim_mode matters is > > when iterating through a zonelist for page allocation and a memoryless > > node should never appear in a zonelist for page allocation, so this is > > just preventing setting zone_reclaim_mode unnecessarily because the only > > nodes with > RECLAIM_DISTANCE to another node are memoryless. So this > > patch is fine as long as it gets s/N_HIGH_MEMORY/N_MEMORY/. > > Ah yes, sorry, I've been looking at this code perhaps too much and going > a bit cross-eyed! > > I wonder if we should also put some comments in? But > > Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan > Tested-by: Nishanth Aravamudan Thanks both of you for acks and testing. I will submit the updated patch and include Andrew to pick it up. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org