From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-5.3 0/4] revert immediate fallback to remote hugepages
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:08:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190925070817.GH23050@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190909193020.GD2063@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Let me revive this thread as there was no follow up.
On Mon 09-09-19 21:30:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> I believe it would be the best to start by explaining why we do not see
> the same problem with order-0 requests. We do not enter the slow path
> and thus the memory reclaim if there is any other node to pass through
> watermakr as well right? So essentially we are relying on kswapd to keep
> nodes balanced so that allocation request can be satisfied from a local
> node. We do have kcompactd to do background compaction. Why do we want
> to rely on the direct compaction instead? What is the fundamental
> difference?
I am especially interested about this part. The more I think about this
the more I am convinced that the underlying problem really is in the pre
mature fallback in the fast path. Does the almost-patch below helps your
workload? It effectively reduces the fast path for higher order
allocations to the local/requested node. The justification is that
watermark check might be too strict for those requests as it is primary
order-0 oriented. Low watermark target simply has no meaning for the
higher order requests AFAIU. The min-low gap is giving kswapd a chance
to balance and be more local node friendly while we do not have anything
like that in compaction.
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index ff5484fdbdf9..09036cf55fca 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -4685,7 +4685,7 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
{
struct page *page;
unsigned int alloc_flags = ALLOC_WMARK_LOW;
- gfp_t alloc_mask; /* The gfp_t that was actually used for allocation */
+ gfp_t fastpath_mask, alloc_mask; /* The gfp_t that was actually used for allocation */
struct alloc_context ac = { };
/*
@@ -4698,7 +4698,7 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
}
gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask;
- alloc_mask = gfp_mask;
+ fastpath_mask = alloc_mask = gfp_mask;
if (!prepare_alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, preferred_nid, nodemask, &ac, &alloc_mask, &alloc_flags))
return NULL;
@@ -4710,8 +4710,17 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int preferred_nid,
*/
alloc_flags |= alloc_flags_nofragment(ac.preferred_zoneref->zone, gfp_mask);
- /* First allocation attempt */
- page = get_page_from_freelist(alloc_mask, order, alloc_flags, &ac);
+ /*
+ * First allocation attempt. If we have a high order allocation then do not fall
+ * back to a remote node just based on the watermark check on the requested node
+ * because compaction might easily free up a requested order and then it would be
+ * better to simply go to the slow path.
+ * TODO: kcompactd should help here but nobody has woken it up unless we hit the
+ * slow path so we might need some tuning there as well.
+ */
+ if (order && (gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM))
+ fastpath_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE;
+ page = get_page_from_freelist(fastpath_mask, order, alloc_flags, &ac);
if (likely(page))
goto out;
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-25 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-04 19:54 David Rientjes
2019-09-04 19:54 ` [rfc 3/4] mm, page_alloc: avoid expensive reclaim when compaction may not succeed David Rientjes
2019-09-05 9:00 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-05 11:22 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-09-05 20:53 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-06 20:16 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-06 20:49 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-04 20:43 ` [patch for-5.3 0/4] revert immediate fallback to remote hugepages Linus Torvalds
2019-09-05 20:54 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-07 19:51 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-07 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-08 1:50 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-08 12:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-09-08 20:45 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-09 8:37 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-04 20:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-05 21:06 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-09 19:30 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-25 7:08 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-09-26 19:03 ` David Rientjes
2019-09-27 7:48 ` Michal Hocko
2019-09-28 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-30 11:28 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-01 5:43 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-01 8:37 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-18 14:15 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-23 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-24 18:59 ` David Rientjes
2019-10-29 14:14 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-29 15:15 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-29 21:33 ` Andrew Morton
2019-10-29 21:45 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-29 23:25 ` David Rientjes
2019-11-05 13:02 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-06 1:01 ` David Rientjes
2019-11-06 7:35 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-06 21:32 ` David Rientjes
2019-11-13 11:20 ` Mel Gorman
2019-11-25 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2019-11-25 11:47 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-25 20:38 ` David Rientjes
2019-11-25 21:34 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-01 13:50 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-01 20:31 ` David Rientjes
2019-10-01 21:54 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-02 10:34 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-02 22:32 ` David Rientjes
2019-10-03 8:00 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-04 12:18 ` 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=20190925070817.GH23050@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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