From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D92A6B0032 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by wghk14 with SMTP id k14so6881782wgh.3 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c8si75818672wjw.102.2015.02.25.15.55.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54EE60FC.7000909@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:55:40 +0100 From: Vlastimil Babka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch v2 for-4.0] mm, thp: really limit transparent hugepage allocation to local node References: <54EDA96C.4000609@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 25.2.2015 22:24, David Rientjes wrote: > >> alloc_pages_preferred_node() variant, change the exact_node() variant to pass >> __GFP_THISNODE, and audit and adjust all callers accordingly. >> > Sounds like that should be done as part of a cleanup after the 4.0 issues > are addressed. alloc_pages_exact_node() does seem to suggest that we want > exactly that node, implying __GFP_THISNODE behavior already, so it would > be good to avoid having this come up again in the future. Oh lovely, just found out that there's alloc_pages_node which should be the preferred-only version, but in fact does not differ from alloc_pages_exact_node in any relevant way. I agree we should do some larger cleanup for next version. >> Also, you pass __GFP_NOWARN but that should be covered by GFP_TRANSHUGE >> already. Of course, nothing guarantees that hugepage == true implies that gfp >> == GFP_TRANSHUGE... but current in-tree callers conform to that. >> > Ah, good point, and it includes __GFP_NORETRY as well which means that > this patch is busted. It won't try compaction or direct reclaim in the > page allocator slowpath because of this: > > /* > * GFP_THISNODE (meaning __GFP_THISNODE, __GFP_NORETRY and > * __GFP_NOWARN set) should not cause reclaim since the subsystem > * (f.e. slab) using GFP_THISNODE may choose to trigger reclaim > * using a larger set of nodes after it has established that the > * allowed per node queues are empty and that nodes are > * over allocated. > */ > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) && > (gfp_mask & GFP_THISNODE) == GFP_THISNODE) > goto nopage; > > Hmm. It would be disappointing to have to pass the nodemask of the exact > node that we want to allocate from into the page allocator to avoid using > __GFP_THISNODE. Yeah. > > There's a sneaky way around it by just removing __GFP_NORETRY from > GFP_TRANSHUGE so the condition above fails and since the page allocator > won't retry for such a high-order allocation, but that probably just > papers over this stuff too much already. I think what we want to do is Alternatively alloc_pages_exact_node() adds __GFP_THISNODE just to node_zonelist() call and not to __alloc_pages() gfp_mask proper? Unless __GFP_THISNODE was given *also* in the incoming gfp_mask, this should give us the right combination? But it's also subtle.... > cause the slab allocators to not use __GFP_WAIT if they want to avoid > reclaim. Yes, the fewer subtle heuristics we have that include combinations of flags (*cough* GFP_TRANSHUGE *cough*), the better. > This is probably going to be a much more invasive patch than originally > thought. Right, we might be changing behavior not just for slab allocators, but also others using such combination of flags. -- 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