From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13FA6B0011 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 15:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p44JHPu8020012 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 12:17:26 -0700 Received: from pwj5 (pwj5.prod.google.com [10.241.219.69]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p44JHNof009230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 12:17:24 -0700 Received: by pwj5 with SMTP id 5so827761pwj.12 for ; Wed, 04 May 2011 12:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:17:22 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allocate memory cgroup structures in local nodes In-Reply-To: <1304533058-18228-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <1304533058-18228-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen , Michal Hocko , Dave Hansen , Balbir Singh , Johannes Weiner On Wed, 4 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > > [Andrew: since this is a regression and a very simple fix > could you still consider it for .39? Thanks] > Before that's considered, the order of the arguments to alloc_pages_exact_node() needs to be fixed. > dde79e005a769 added a regression that the memory cgroup data structures > all end up in node 0 because the first attempt at allocating them > would not pass in a node hint. Since the initialization runs on CPU #0 > it would all end up node 0. This is a problem on large memory systems, > where node 0 would lose a lot of memory. > > Change the alloc_pages_exact to alloc_pages_exact_node. This will > still fall back to other nodes if not enough memory is available. > The vmalloc_node() calls ensure that the nid is actually set in N_HIGH_MEMORY and fails otherwise (we don't fallback to using vmalloc()), so it looks like the failures for alloc_pages_exact_node() and vmalloc_node() would be different? Why do we want to fallback for one and not the other? > [RED-PEN: right now it would fall back first before trying > vmalloc_node. Probably not the best strategy ... But I left it like > that for now.] > > Reported-by: Doug Nelson > CC: Michal Hocko > Cc: Dave Hansen > Cc: Balbir Singh > Cc: Johannes Weiner > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen > --- > mm/page_cgroup.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_cgroup.c b/mm/page_cgroup.c > index 9905501..1f4e20f 100644 > --- a/mm/page_cgroup.c > +++ b/mm/page_cgroup.c > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static void *__init_refok alloc_page_cgroup(size_t size, int nid) > { > void *addr = NULL; > > - addr = alloc_pages_exact(size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN); > + addr = alloc_pages_exact_node(nid, size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN); > if (addr) > return addr; > -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org