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 A4FF1C4332F for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:15:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 36BCD8E0002; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 31B048E0001; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:15:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 209C08E0002; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:15:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117928E0001 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F2A160229 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80089001832.03.6A87302 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3210780004 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:15:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42A221E9F; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:15:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1667405714; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0ltRSvD+MBT0/eZowW+t0lbg4zeEUtzQRQMUxfd+dLc=; b=Ia+9q/A1gQ3ByrTl0c7R3Gle155cWOybT1S1hFJtgXPdv8N2weiwKkF/rr+4o+zEFBwAS+ iV7ltM6DkCGr0GibiXH08/I1Ud3U/nIWKHad3vLvlbFqAOEjJ5TmvZApoY/QhKhiCWiKNn cH1KqunG/vE62dAO92DdeJr4B6BHJd4= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 871DA139D3; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id PkbYHZKXYmNIHAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 02 Nov 2022 16:15:14 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:15:13 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yang Shi Cc: Zach O'Keefe , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined Message-ID: References: <20221031183122.470962-1-shy828301@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1667405716; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=wRFgKmKP9KOgGtU8m5mWmN4RBLKuPmMjkfNuWIuhS6s0m91lZpYP9SXE9K35Fn2UsAXOvs l4wZzegHs/cka+zoKwISc1NjtLdeNf38ZZYOz0pnakbc+mpAYizSlwl70AjIkCJmlwGkce GTX1PSfBCCXwM37Ks6JN64ZxNHXJkwo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="Ia+9q/A1"; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1667405716; 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:dkim-signature; bh=0ltRSvD+MBT0/eZowW+t0lbg4zeEUtzQRQMUxfd+dLc=; b=sp1PJTnHuUcoAvXhTY2cuBoolVgHtVh/hxwwwwORfpkf7PHMTYhaSdv9UIvhC80ZPVKlk4 nNRWXSDTatoVHJyZE5aAPlk1HzIth9dhp4p5kU/v9oVtk73FdQckGf6srlYHd6Jw7ZdW9z M8HoNrS6kXlvViFjaFgvvsYUoHQgEO8= X-Stat-Signature: nf4sjbf6iycj6jsyqnxezgwbm68gxkcz X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3210780004 Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="Ia+9q/A1"; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-HE-Tag: 1667405715-659002 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: On Wed 02-11-22 09:03:57, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:39 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 01-11-22 12:13:35, Zach O'Keefe wrote: > > [...] > > > This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail > > > about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE + > > > explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a > > > nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some > > > node contained > some threshold number of pages. > > > > I would simply go with something like this (not even compile tested): > > Thanks, Michal. It is definitely an option. As I talked with Zach, I'm > not sure whether it is worth making the code more complicated for such > micro optimization or not. Removing __GFP_THISNODE or even removing > the node balance code should be fine too IMHO. TBH I doubt there would > be any noticeable difference. I do agree that an explicit nodes (quasi)round robin sounds over engineered. It makes some sense to try to target the prevalent node though because this code can be executed from khugepaged and therefore allocating with a completely different affinity than the original fault. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs