From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C797D6B0302 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 08:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id g23so24930361wme.4 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 05:10:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com (outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com. [46.22.139.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v4si22567335wjk.289.2016.12.20.05.10.41 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 05:10:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail06.blacknight.ie [81.17.255.152]) by outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601B71C22F5 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:10:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:10:40 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data Message-ID: <20161220131040.f5ga5426dduh3mhu@techsingularity.net> References: <1481522347-20393-1-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <1481522347-20393-2-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Jia He , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , Joonsoo Kim , Taku Izumi Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: 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. -- Mel Gorman 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