From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/thp: Always allocate transparent hugepages on local node
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:33:42 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411241317430.21237@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141124150342.GA3889@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node. If
> > we can't we fallback to small page allocation based on
> > mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages
> > on local node is more beneficial that allocating hugepages on remote node.
>
> Local node on allocation is not necessary local node for use.
> If policy says to use a specific node[s], we should follow.
>
True, and the interaction between thp and mempolicies is fragile: if a
process has a MPOL_BIND mempolicy over a set of nodes, that does not
necessarily mean that we want to allocate thp remotely if it will always
be accessed remotely. It's simple to benchmark and show that remote
access latency of a hugepage can exceed that of local pages. MPOL_BIND
itself is a policy of exclusion, not inclusion, and it's difficult to
define when local pages and its cost of allocation is better than remote
thp.
For MPOL_BIND, if the local node is allowed then thp should be forced from
that node, if the local node is disallowed then allocate from any node in
the nodemask. For MPOL_INTERLEAVE, I think we should only allocate thp
from the next node in order, otherwise fail the allocation and fallback to
small pages. Is this what you meant as well?
> I think it makes sense to force local allocation if policy is interleave
> or if current node is in preferred or bind set.
>
If local allocation were forced for MPOL_INTERLEAVE and all memory is
initially faulted by cpus on a single node, then the policy has
effectively become MPOL_DEFAULT, there's no interleave.
Aside: the patch is also buggy since it passes numa_node_id() and thp is
supported on platforms that allow memoryless nodes.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-24 21:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-24 14:19 Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-11-24 15:03 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-24 21:33 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2014-11-25 14:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-27 6:32 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.10.1411241317430.21237@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox