From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7080CD1292 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3A57F6B0092; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:18:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 355696B0095; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:18:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 244416B0098; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:18:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0711D6B0092 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:18:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4C40F46 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:18:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81972811578.24.0354EBC Received: from gentwo.org (gentwo.org [62.72.0.81]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BBF40009 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=linux.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (imf11.hostedemail.com: 62.72.0.81 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of cl@linux.com) smtp.mailfrom=cl@linux.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1712258328; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/KQCu/mltfEoKC40v/KKp9haeZEk1fmHGzak7UrYD5I=; b=GOrQ6YT/9oEu9VX2uMCMGdVmaZ7KLYAPGhhAVNbh0M86xKuDnmGVjKMy7BCR5SLtnN5ARV fzcYMTeR5ig+rv8FDLoxn9qV6HbKH8jAtRUjFKIE/hhuRIFl6P+zAlSKPpkyaBE/eoNC3q ueNZ55y5ltUACHkyCzZjRM18Ec2KweU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=linux.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (imf11.hostedemail.com: 62.72.0.81 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of cl@linux.com) smtp.mailfrom=cl@linux.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1712258328; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=G5RBjUGBwM+d4YYElaVRL5nLlz5IeKGyNgEmX7COI5FHWtne7dhQT8THOUHWleMLfAcZN8 lbjgmHahZPFkG7PEevqNO2batUNvl5lwk4mg1UiqZQCrBx2R4K/4igm4ABouxqzN5Sux76 90ffORBRPyIUliSKNZkp0OIzBtG1B3M= Received: by gentwo.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 172CA40A89; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gentwo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1506940A86; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" To: Ming Yang cc: penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhangliang5@huawei.com, wangzhigang17@huawei.com, liushixin2@huawei.com, alex.chen@huawei.com, pengyi.pengyi@huawei.com, xiqi2@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slub segmentation In-Reply-To: <20240402031025.1097-1-yangming73@huawei.com> Message-ID: <56193a2c-dadb-108d-4eaf-0a923fc4912b@linux.com> References: <20240402031025.1097-1-yangming73@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: yat6to6rwp5j13x6jb3p6mqhk9zd58p6 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 21BBF40009 X-HE-Tag: 1712258327-498886 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX19QDBfhJQW/LQ095pn5mN2XrvR1NanzItB64RxBOqP5zfC1Sks+4cAu8STi9FkyrZbJYUNYhR+hBAxg47l8LZ974djRh7IQM4gAJANFy0I1AXu9+ToNlFwndmqSwLYnzAPoAu8IbUJoL1KQRZ5CbFHe1HzzVfRD+mxQd0llZTDVSnqO7aOcm9MgP2L9TwhizAjL1OeQWQu+gi7Ongt8MHSqD88T/FXsPov7cEv1kkLdrJH+zqmOju8DGiBWLcwpDpyesSfkuaymvH5NJyJ/vrAWfkBWWaSwbkdwEuyPIsosf1imZl75FFv2z0ZHvG9WB0ezF2OaSvzLSYx6zm0fb5rNnhFk8cuv4p8ufd+UHnh9NwqiS74uVnVVuF0ZP3hyLB2EMUwMjFbFd23Mzit1l3o3BRRbE9Jijer+bkVl/Nul/hCDT61G+DRPppwt4eBqqc1gTzxlwS1sXAnUUJ22yoTz9iBfKXfzow1GSP87pCcZGHQjVu7d43ZRn9AzedTiTdWC3Gas9SH3rg7ubh1NpkuNPIQgJ+WSysyfi9ZEgw7EDtFC2BG2wGptEB3DTgMz/HHA9b/Z0q4pBywBMbogvK/9+ri/wDujrQB+/i0v6kpiGDwdikJsRnP/65xNT0q8pl7MiA2dxYpFpJmHXi3eto+t03v3GsLf3iC7Pd/oPF8cuMV7S3kQkNjqkkZy/1ZI452jzkpQUvrp2IhIPuZKMpHRlt6Ygz5gllM/xjKgB3iAWAMVt5kmr9o3eTTEKeObzGQUSKwjLxh8tlHt8/kP9+i9RD5J53+Hki6hWPpiDhWpx3SRSffFdmCp6RDAJeTNsUFTm8dP3L0MdRJnbYN0PRCFdl+PWQQrXkE4xqcek55YKj+ReTVa9IvVWmgVENMHQwYqXU0qs5k7ODgoXkcj2+Sc2/GRrmKt5+GC3FNBmzlU5IE4GTU6n+G3q5KAHlVB9caiwZtb+Sx 1hUO0B9h mrmaVX5dVBqNZUUEQUjulNVcrd3A+oA+2DqMqobW5Tku7CPpLeKBkooAZQetU2RxSvRfYAKDFKDItpPZ68yAcgz7NqsP+oev2AyY69jwdKldLWZ4gjPkFvtWFLjPq6fcJ0/ZKjK3fL3Wlh1AWuVsS704iYbCwyKAfLM14lCAaVDyjYBbUbMjf/t2v1XjC/E3fvmv7sq86a3iFigM= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, 2 Apr 2024, Ming Yang wrote: > The key point of above allocation flow is: the slab should be alloced > from the partial of other node first, instead of the buddy system of > other node directly. If you use GFP_THISNODE then you will trigger a reclaim pass on the remote node. That could generate a performance regression. We already support this kind of behavior via the node_reclaim / zone_reclaiom setting in procfs. Please use that. The remote buildup of the partial pages can be addressed by changing the remote_node_defrag_ratio in the slabs. This will make slub scan remote nodes for partial slabs before going into the page allocator.