From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935555AbcLTOfH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:35:07 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:34563 "EHLO mail-wj0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935248AbcLTOfF (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:35:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:35:02 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Mel Gorman Cc: Jia He , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , Joonsoo Kim , Taku Izumi Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data Message-ID: <20161220143501.GI3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1481522347-20393-1-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <1481522347-20393-2-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161220131040.f5ga5426dduh3mhu@techsingularity.net> <20161220132643.GG3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161220142845.drbedcibjcggdxk7@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161220142845.drbedcibjcggdxk7@techsingularity.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 20-12-16 14:28:45, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 20-12-16 13:10:40, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:18:14AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 12-12-16 13:59:07, Jia He wrote: > > > > > In commit b9f00e147f27 ("mm, page_alloc: reduce branches in > > > > > zone_statistics"), it reconstructed codes to reduce the branch miss rate. > > > > > Compared with the original logic, it assumed if !(flag & __GFP_OTHER_NODE) > > > > > z->node would not be equal to preferred_zone->node. That seems to be > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I have hard time following the changelog. It is clear > > > > that you are trying to fix a missed NUMA_{HIT,OTHER} accounting > > > > but it is not really clear when such thing happens. You are adding > > > > preferred_zone->node check. preferred_zone is the first zone in the > > > > requested zonelist. So for the most allocations it is a node from the > > > > local node. But if something request an explicit numa node (without > > > > __GFP_OTHER_NODE which would be the majority I suspect) then we could > > > > indeed end up accounting that as a NUMA_MISS, NUMA_FOREIGN so the > > > > referenced patch indeed caused an unintended change of accounting AFAIU. > > > > > > > > > > This is a similar concern to what I had. If the preferred zone, which is > > > the first valid usable zone, is not a "hit" for the statistics then I > > > don't know what "hit" is meant to mean. > > > > But the first valid usable zone is defined based on the requested numa > > node. Unless the requested node is memoryless then we should have a hit, > > no? > > > > Should be. If the local node is memoryless then there would be a difference > between hit and whether it's local or not but that to me is a little > useless. A local vs remote page allocated has a specific meaning and > consequence. It's hard to see how hit can be meaningfully interpreted if > there are memoryless nodes. I don't have a strong objection to the patch > so I didn't nak it, I'm just not convinced it matters. So what do you think about http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz I think that we should get rid of __GFP_OTHER_NODE thingy. It is just one off thing and the gfp space it rather precious. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C73F6B0323 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id g23so25371212wme.4 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 06:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wj0-f195.google.com (mail-wj0-f195.google.com. [209.85.210.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lm8si22874362wjb.234.2016.12.20.06.35.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wj0-f195.google.com with SMTP id j10so27938256wjb.3 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:35:02 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data Message-ID: <20161220143501.GI3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1481522347-20393-1-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <1481522347-20393-2-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161220131040.f5ga5426dduh3mhu@techsingularity.net> <20161220132643.GG3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161220142845.drbedcibjcggdxk7@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161220142845.drbedcibjcggdxk7@techsingularity.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Jia He , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , Joonsoo Kim , Taku Izumi On Tue 20-12-16 14:28:45, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 20-12-16 13:10:40, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:18:14AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 12-12-16 13:59:07, Jia He wrote: > > > > > In commit b9f00e147f27 ("mm, page_alloc: reduce branches in > > > > > zone_statistics"), it reconstructed codes to reduce the branch miss rate. > > > > > Compared with the original logic, it assumed if !(flag & __GFP_OTHER_NODE) > > > > > z->node would not be equal to preferred_zone->node. That seems to be > > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I have hard time following the changelog. It is clear > > > > that you are trying to fix a missed NUMA_{HIT,OTHER} accounting > > > > but it is not really clear when such thing happens. You are adding > > > > preferred_zone->node check. preferred_zone is the first zone in the > > > > requested zonelist. So for the most allocations it is a node from the > > > > local node. But if something request an explicit numa node (without > > > > __GFP_OTHER_NODE which would be the majority I suspect) then we could > > > > indeed end up accounting that as a NUMA_MISS, NUMA_FOREIGN so the > > > > referenced patch indeed caused an unintended change of accounting AFAIU. > > > > > > > > > > This is a similar concern to what I had. If the preferred zone, which is > > > the first valid usable zone, is not a "hit" for the statistics then I > > > don't know what "hit" is meant to mean. > > > > But the first valid usable zone is defined based on the requested numa > > node. Unless the requested node is memoryless then we should have a hit, > > no? > > > > Should be. If the local node is memoryless then there would be a difference > between hit and whether it's local or not but that to me is a little > useless. A local vs remote page allocated has a specific meaning and > consequence. It's hard to see how hit can be meaningfully interpreted if > there are memoryless nodes. I don't have a strong objection to the patch > so I didn't nak it, I'm just not convinced it matters. So what do you think about http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz I think that we should get rid of __GFP_OTHER_NODE thingy. It is just one off thing and the gfp space it rather precious. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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: email@kvack.org