From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754743AbbGXUwn (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:52:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44313 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752203AbbGXUwl (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: <55B2A596.1010101@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:52:38 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Rientjes CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Greg Thelen , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Naoya Horiguchi Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/4] mm: make alloc_pages_exact_node pass __GFP_THISNODE References: <1437749126-25867-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 24.7.2015 22:08, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h >> index 15928f0..c50848e 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h >> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h >> @@ -300,6 +300,22 @@ __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, >> return __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * An optimized version of alloc_pages_node(), to be only used in places where >> + * the overhead of the check for nid == -1 could matter. > > We don't actually check for nid == -1, or nid == NUMA_NO_NODE, in any of > the functions. I would just state that nid must be valid and possible to > allocate from when passed to this function. OK >> + */ >> +static inline struct page * >> +__alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) >> +{ >> + VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid)); >> + >> + return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * Allocate pages, preferring the node given as nid. When nid equals -1, >> + * prefer the current CPU's node. >> + */ > > We've done quite a bit of work to refer only to NUMA_NO_NODE, so we'd like > to avoid hardcoded -1 anywhere we can. OK >> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> unsigned int order) >> { >> @@ -310,11 +326,18 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Allocate pages, restricting the allocation to the node given as nid. The >> + * node must be valid and online. This is achieved by adding __GFP_THISNODE >> + * to gfp_mask. > > Not sure we need to point out that __GPF_THISNODE does this, it stands out > pretty well in the function already :) Right. >> + */ >> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> unsigned int order) >> { >> VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid)); >> >> + gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE; >> + >> return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> } >> > [snip] > > I assume you looked at the collapse_huge_page() case and decided that it > needs no modification since the gfp mask is used later for other calls? Yeah. Not that the memcg charge parts would seem to care about __GFP_THISNODE, though. >> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >> index f53838f..d139222 100644 >> --- a/mm/migrate.c >> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >> @@ -1554,10 +1554,8 @@ static struct page *alloc_misplaced_dst_page(struct page *page, >> struct page *newpage; >> >> newpage = alloc_pages_exact_node(nid, >> - (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | >> - __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | >> - __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & >> - ~GFP_IOFS, 0); >> + (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | >> + __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~GFP_IOFS, 0); >> >> return newpage; >> } > [snip] > > What about the alloc_pages_exact_node() in new_page_node()? Oops, seems I missed that one. So the API seems ok otherwise? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5387A6B0038 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so78184726wic.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dk2si69126wib.80.2015.07.24.13.52.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55B2A596.1010101@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:52:38 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/4] mm: make alloc_pages_exact_node pass __GFP_THISNODE References: <1437749126-25867-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Greg Thelen , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Naoya Horiguchi On 24.7.2015 22:08, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h >> index 15928f0..c50848e 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h >> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h >> @@ -300,6 +300,22 @@ __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, >> return __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * An optimized version of alloc_pages_node(), to be only used in places where >> + * the overhead of the check for nid == -1 could matter. > > We don't actually check for nid == -1, or nid == NUMA_NO_NODE, in any of > the functions. I would just state that nid must be valid and possible to > allocate from when passed to this function. OK >> + */ >> +static inline struct page * >> +__alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) >> +{ >> + VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid)); >> + >> + return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * Allocate pages, preferring the node given as nid. When nid equals -1, >> + * prefer the current CPU's node. >> + */ > > We've done quite a bit of work to refer only to NUMA_NO_NODE, so we'd like > to avoid hardcoded -1 anywhere we can. OK >> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> unsigned int order) >> { >> @@ -310,11 +326,18 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Allocate pages, restricting the allocation to the node given as nid. The >> + * node must be valid and online. This is achieved by adding __GFP_THISNODE >> + * to gfp_mask. > > Not sure we need to point out that __GPF_THISNODE does this, it stands out > pretty well in the function already :) Right. >> + */ >> static inline struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask, >> unsigned int order) >> { >> VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid)); >> >> + gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE; >> + >> return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask)); >> } >> > [snip] > > I assume you looked at the collapse_huge_page() case and decided that it > needs no modification since the gfp mask is used later for other calls? Yeah. Not that the memcg charge parts would seem to care about __GFP_THISNODE, though. >> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >> index f53838f..d139222 100644 >> --- a/mm/migrate.c >> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >> @@ -1554,10 +1554,8 @@ static struct page *alloc_misplaced_dst_page(struct page *page, >> struct page *newpage; >> >> newpage = alloc_pages_exact_node(nid, >> - (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | >> - __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | >> - __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & >> - ~GFP_IOFS, 0); >> + (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | >> + __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~GFP_IOFS, 0); >> >> return newpage; >> } > [snip] > > What about the alloc_pages_exact_node() in new_page_node()? Oops, seems I missed that one. So the API seems ok otherwise? -- 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