From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: actually ignore mempolicies for high priority allocations
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180816100317.GV32645@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180815151652.05d4c4684b7dff2282b5c046@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed 15-08-18 15:16:52, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Subject: mm, page_alloc: actually ignore mempolicies for high priority allocations
>
> The __alloc_pages_slowpath() function has for a long time contained code
> to ignore node restrictions from memory policies for high priority
> allocations. The current code that resets the zonelist iterator however
> does effectively nothing after commit 7810e6781e0f ("mm, page_alloc: do
> not break __GFP_THISNODE by zonelist reset") removed a buggy zonelist
> reset. Even before that commit, mempolicy restrictions were still not
> ignored, as they are passed in ac->nodemask which is untouched by the
> code.
>
> We can either remove the code, or make it work as intended. Since
> ac->nodemask can be set from task's mempolicy via alloc_pages_current()
> and thus also alloc_pages(), it may indeed affect kernel allocations, and
> it makes sense to ignore it to allow progress for high priority
> allocations.
>
> Thus, this patch resets ac->nodemask to NULL in such cases. This assumes
> all callers can handle it (i.e. there are no guarantees as in the case of
> __GFP_THISNODE) which seems to be the case. The same assumption is
> already present in check_retry_cpuset() for some time.
>
> The expected effect is that high priority kernel allocations in the
> context of userspace tasks (e.g. OOM victims) restricted by mempolicies
> will have higher chance to succeed if they are restricted to nodes with
> depleted memory, while there are other nodes with free memory left.
>
>
> Ot's not a new intention, but for the first time the code will match the
> intention, AFAICS. It was intended by commit 183f6371aac2 ("mm: ignore
> mempolicies when using ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK") in v3.6 but I think it never
> really worked, as mempolicy restriction was already encoded in nodemask,
> not zonelist, at that time.
>
> So originally that was for ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK only. Then it was adjusted
> by e46e7b77c909 ("mm, page_alloc: recalculate the preferred zoneref if the
> context can ignore memory policies") and cd04ae1e2dc8 ("mm, oom: do not
> rely on TIF_MEMDIE for memory reserves access") to the current state. So
> even GFP_ATOMIC would now ignore mempolicies after the initial attempts
> fail - if the code worked as people thought it does.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180612122624.8045-1-vbabka@suse.cz
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
The code is quite subtle and we have a bad history of copying stuff
without rethinking whether the code still is needed. Which is sad and a
clear sign that the code is too complex. I cannot say this change
doesn't have any subtle side effects but it makes the intention clear at
least so I _think_ it is good to go. If we find some unintended side
effects we should simply rethink the whole reset zonelist thing.
That being said
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
>
> mm/page_alloc.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c~mm-page_alloc-actually-ignore-mempolicies-for-high-priority-allocations
> +++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4165,11 +4165,12 @@ retry:
> alloc_flags = reserve_flags;
>
> /*
> - * Reset the zonelist iterators if memory policies can be ignored.
> - * These allocations are high priority and system rather than user
> - * orientated.
> + * Reset the nodemask and zonelist iterators if memory policies can be
> + * ignored. These allocations are high priority and system rather than
> + * user oriented.
> */
> if (!(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CPUSET) || reserve_flags) {
> + ac->nodemask = NULL;
> ac->preferred_zoneref = first_zones_zonelist(ac->zonelist,
> ac->high_zoneidx, ac->nodemask);
> }
> _
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-16 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180612122624.8045-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
2018-08-15 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2018-08-16 9:25 ` Mel Gorman
2018-08-16 10:03 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-08-18 13:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-20 10:41 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-20 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-20 11:04 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180816100317.GV32645@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox