Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86, gfp: Cache best near node for memory allocation.

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

(cc'ing Christoph Lameter)

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:29:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:45PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > index ad35f30..1a1324f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -307,13 +307,19 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >  	if (nid < 0)
> >  		nid = numa_node_id();
> >  
> > +	if (!node_online(nid))
> > +		nid = get_near_online_node(nid);
> > +
> >  	return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
> >  }
> 
> Why not just update node_data[]->node_zonelist in the first place?
> Also, what's the synchronization rule here?  How are allocators
> synchronized against node hot [un]plugs?

Also, shouldn't kmalloc_node() or any public allocator fall back
automatically to a near node w/o GFP_THISNODE?  Why is this failing at
all?  I get that cpu id -> node id mapping changing messes up the
locality but allocations shouldn't fail, right?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>