From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81821C433E1 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4777420768 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:52:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4777420768 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E47706B0008; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DF66A6B000A; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CE4DA6B000C; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0110.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.110]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46926B0008 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E068D181AC9C6 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:52:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76965151284.25.apple73_4d0dd7326e46 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CBE1804E3A1 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:52:02 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: apple73_4d0dd7326e46 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7232 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id h15so3466239wrq.8 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:52:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2cMKilgf66FCIWnyDIhCH6x/r6ZjF/CwOV/tnIGSvEI=; b=t/sgPSHR0bE/kccny0lQr1P/n31UDuYFd0zudQtQhy824/D5ptWeG1yWi2WxzJkSN3 amZO1Iak4ZWAa0vCmKrTwvOIC0ZjmvWwUrIMO5GU7qB7JqyinuqawZPlzj8M+6ROvMjb NozzDz1/q5IHaTTUsk7Cqjk6oVpaD1EsDPndgrhZnzgnmMmQZI/UsA+CetEI0UVVUrs6 d1VV5VqydrHr8Co3TVOFVu09/Ni2LM7MqDy3BCyP8fnpmEcOiYlzRIR6z21j++6mhh4X bH32sHst6RL2fNmo9ozjJflC7j1Lksl0mi601QrNFMKZjiKLCzx9b5W60UK7Bvv4nieF g6Wg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5329zLSUOQJVnjZxzXHREEv2jtOhX9IvLZjszmmXyoave6vUST3+ anpaq0MCuSNTepqN22pAPWQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2Ro4lrSHmIdUQEq4EprhrnHZQ/Lw8SWbIsSIzO01j2eVdYTyBrWifV5kpsmao7BgKx0bALg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e545:: with SMTP id z5mr31880147wrm.89.1593028321073; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-168-3.eurotel.cz. [37.188.168.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q128sm9159300wma.38.2020.06.24.12.51.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 21:51:58 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Ben Widawsky Cc: linux-mm , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Dan Williams , Dave Hansen , David Hildenbrand , David Rientjes , Jason Gunthorpe , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Lee Schermerhorn , Li Xinhai , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Mina Almasry , Tejun Heo , Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] multiple preferred nodes Message-ID: <20200624195158.GX1320@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200619162425.1052382-1-ben.widawsky@intel.com> <20200622070957.GB31426@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200623112048.GR31426@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200623161211.qjup5km5eiisy5wy@intel.com> <20200624075216.GC1320@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200624161643.75fkkvsxlmp3bf2e@intel.com> <20200624183917.GW1320@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200624193733.tqeligjd3pdvrsmi@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200624193733.tqeligjd3pdvrsmi@intel.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B5CBE1804E3A1 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 24-06-20 12:37:33, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On 20-06-24 20:39:17, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 24-06-20 09:16:43, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On 20-06-24 09:52:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 23-06-20 09:12:11, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > > On 20-06-23 13:20:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > It would be also great to provide a high level semantic description > > > > > > here. I have very quickly glanced through patches and they are not > > > > > > really trivial to follow with many incremental steps so the higher level > > > > > > intention is lost easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I get it right that the default semantic is essentially > > > > > > - allocate page from the given nodemask (with __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL > > > > > > semantic) > > > > > > - fallback to numa unrestricted allocation with the default > > > > > > numa policy on the failure > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are there any usecases to modify how hard to keep the preference over > > > > > > the fallback? > > > > > > > > > > tl;dr is: yes, and no usecases. > > > > > > > > OK, then I am wondering why the change has to be so involved. Except for > > > > syscall plumbing the only real change to the allocator path would be > > > > something like > > > > > > > > static nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy) > > > > { > > > > /* Lower zones don't get a nodemask applied for MPOL_BIND */ > > > > if (unlikely(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND || > > > > policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERED_MANY) && > > > > apply_policy_zone(policy, gfp_zone(gfp)) && > > > > cpuset_nodemask_valid_mems_allowed(&policy->v.nodes)) > > > > return &policy->v.nodes; > > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > alloc_pages_current > > > > > > > > if (pol->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) > > > > page = alloc_page_interleave(gfp, order, interleave_nodes(pol)); > > > > else { > > > > gfp_t gfp_attempt = gfp; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Make sure the first allocation attempt will try hard > > > > * but eventually fail without OOM killer or other > > > > * disruption before falling back to the full nodemask > > > > */ > > > > if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERED_MANY) > > > > gfp_attempt |= __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL; > > > > > > > > page = __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_attempt, order, > > > > policy_node(gfp, pol, numa_node_id()), > > > > policy_nodemask(gfp, pol)); > > > > if (!page && pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERED_MANY) > > > > page = __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp, order, > > > > numa_node_id(), NULL); > > > > } > > > > > > > > return page; > > > > > > > > similar (well slightly more hairy) in alloc_pages_vma > > > > > > > > Or do I miss something that really requires more involved approach like > > > > building custom zonelists and other larger changes to the allocator? > > > > > > I think I'm missing how this allows selecting from multiple preferred nodes. In > > > this case when you try to get the page from the freelist, you'll get the > > > zonelist of the preferred node, and when you actually scan through on page > > > allocation, you have no way to filter out the non-preferred nodes. I think the > > > plumbing of multiple nodes has to go all the way through > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask(). But it's possible I've missed the point. > > > > policy_nodemask() will provide the nodemask which will be used as a > > filter on the policy_node. > > Ah, gotcha. Enabling independent masks seemed useful. Some bad decisions got me > to that point. UAPI cannot get independent masks, and callers of these functions > don't yet use them. > > So let me ask before I actually type it up and find it's much much simpler, is > there not some perceived benefit to having both masks being independent? I am not sure I follow. Which two masks do you have in mind? zonelist and user provided nodemask? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs