Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Reduce memory consumption in extreme scenarios

["chenjun (AM)" <chenjun102@huawei.com>]

在 2023/3/17 20:06, Vlastimil Babka 写道:
> On 3/17/23 12:32, chenjun (AM) wrote:
>> 在 2023/3/14 22:41, Vlastimil Babka 写道:
>>>>    	pc.flags = gfpflags;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * when (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE)
>>>> +	 * 1) try to get a partial slab from target node with __GFP_THISNODE.
>>>> +	 * 2) if 1) failed, try to allocate a new slab from target node with
>>>> +	 *    __GFP_THISNODE.
>>>> +	 * 3) if 2) failed, retry 1) and 2) without __GFP_THISNODE constraint.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !(gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) && try_thisnode)
>>>> +			pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE;
>>>
>>> Hmm I'm thinking we should also perhaps remove direct reclaim possibilities
>>> from the attempt 2). In your qemu test it should make no difference, as it
>>> fills everything with kernel memory that is not reclaimable. But in practice
>>> the target node might be filled with user memory, and I think it's better to
>>> quickly allocate on a different node than spend time in direct reclaim. So
>>> the following should work I think?
>>>
>>> pc.flags = GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, Should it be that:
>>
>> pc.flags |= GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE
> 
> No, we need to ignore the other reclaim-related flags that the caller
> passed, or it wouldn't work as intended.
> The danger is that we ignore some flag that would be necessary to pass, but
> I don't think there's any?
> 
> 

If we ignore __GFP_ZERO passed by kzalloc， kzalloc will not work.
Could we just unmask __GFP_RECLAIMABLE | __GFP_RECLAIM?

pc.flags &= ~(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE | __GFP_RECLAIM)
pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE