From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"Widawsky, Ben" <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:25:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210513072545.GC44993@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420071625.GB48282@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit
Now the only remaining case of actual 'local' policy faked by
'prefer' policy plus MPOL_F_LOCAL bit is:
A valid 'prefer' policy with a valid 'preferred' node is 'rebind'
to a nodemask which doesn't contains the 'preferred' node, then it
will handle allocation with 'local' policy.
Add a new 'MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP' bit for this case, and kill the
MPOL_F_LOCAL bit, which could simplify the code much.
Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
---
include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 +
mm/mempolicy.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
index 4832fd0..2f71177 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum {
#define MPOL_F_LOCAL (1 << 1) /* preferred local allocation */
#define MPOL_F_MOF (1 << 3) /* this policy wants migrate on fault */
#define MPOL_F_MORON (1 << 4) /* Migrate On protnone Reference On Node */
+#define MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP (1 << 5) /* MPOL_PREFERRED policy temporarily change to MPOL_LOCAL */
/*
* These bit locations are exposed in the vm.zone_reclaim_mode sysctl
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 2f20f079..9cdbb78 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -332,6 +332,22 @@ static void mpol_rebind_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
pol->v.nodes = tmp;
}
+static void mpol_rebind_local(struct mempolicy *pol,
+ const nodemask_t *nodes)
+{
+ if (unlikely(pol->flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES)) {
+ int node = first_node(pol->w.user_nodemask);
+
+ BUG_ON(!(pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP));
+
+ if (node_isset(node, *nodes)) {
+ pol->v.preferred_node = node;
+ pol->mode = MPOL_PREFERRED;
+ pol->flags &= ~MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP;
+ }
+ }
+}
+
static void mpol_rebind_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol,
const nodemask_t *nodes)
{
@@ -342,13 +358,19 @@ static void mpol_rebind_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol,
if (node_isset(node, *nodes)) {
pol->v.preferred_node = node;
- pol->flags &= ~MPOL_F_LOCAL;
- } else
- pol->flags |= MPOL_F_LOCAL;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * If there is no valid node, change the mode to
+ * MPOL_LOCAL, which will be restored back when
+ * next rebind() see a valid node.
+ */
+ pol->mode = MPOL_LOCAL;
+ pol->flags |= MPOL_F_LOCAL_TEMP;
+ }
} else if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES) {
mpol_relative_nodemask(&tmp, &pol->w.user_nodemask, nodes);
pol->v.preferred_node = first_node(tmp);
- } else if (!(pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)) {
+ } else {
pol->v.preferred_node = node_remap(pol->v.preferred_node,
pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed,
*nodes);
@@ -367,7 +389,7 @@ static void mpol_rebind_policy(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *newmask)
{
if (!pol)
return;
- if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) && !(pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL) &&
+ if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) &&
nodes_equal(pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed, *newmask))
return;
@@ -419,7 +441,7 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations mpol_ops[MPOL_MAX] = {
.rebind = mpol_rebind_nodemask,
},
[MPOL_LOCAL] = {
- .rebind = mpol_rebind_default,
+ .rebind = mpol_rebind_local,
},
};
@@ -913,10 +935,12 @@ static void get_policy_nodemask(struct mempolicy *p, nodemask_t *nodes)
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
*nodes = p->v.nodes;
break;
+ case MPOL_LOCAL:
+ /* return empty node mask for local allocation */
+ break;
+
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- if (!(p->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
- node_set(p->v.preferred_node, *nodes);
- /* else return empty node mask for local allocation */
+ node_set(p->v.preferred_node, *nodes);
break;
default:
BUG();
@@ -1888,9 +1912,9 @@ nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy)
/* Return the node id preferred by the given mempolicy, or the given id */
static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd)
{
- if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
+ if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED) {
nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
- else {
+ } else {
/*
* __GFP_THISNODE shouldn't even be used with the bind policy
* because we might easily break the expectation to stay on the
@@ -1927,14 +1951,11 @@ unsigned int mempolicy_slab_node(void)
return node;
policy = current->mempolicy;
- if (!policy || policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
+ if (!policy)
return node;
switch (policy->mode) {
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- /*
- * handled MPOL_F_LOCAL above
- */
return policy->v.preferred_node;
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
@@ -2068,16 +2089,13 @@ bool init_nodemask_of_mempolicy(nodemask_t *mask)
mempolicy = current->mempolicy;
switch (mempolicy->mode) {
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- if (mempolicy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
- nid = numa_node_id();
- else
- nid = mempolicy->v.preferred_node;
+ nid = mempolicy->v.preferred_node;
init_nodemask_of_node(mask, nid);
break;
case MPOL_BIND:
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
- *mask = mempolicy->v.nodes;
+ *mask = mempolicy->v.nodes;
break;
case MPOL_LOCAL:
@@ -2119,8 +2137,9 @@ bool mempolicy_nodemask_intersects(struct task_struct *tsk,
switch (mempolicy->mode) {
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
+ case MPOL_LOCAL:
/*
- * MPOL_PREFERRED and MPOL_F_LOCAL are only preferred nodes to
+ * MPOL_PREFERRED and MPOL_LOCAL are only preferred nodes to
* allocate from, they may fallback to other nodes when oom.
* Thus, it's possible for tsk to have allocated memory from
* nodes in mask.
@@ -2205,7 +2224,7 @@ struct page *alloc_pages_vma(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
* If the policy is interleave, or does not allow the current
* node in its nodemask, we allocate the standard way.
*/
- if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
+ if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED )
hpage_node = pol->v.preferred_node;
nmask = policy_nodemask(gfp, pol);
@@ -2341,9 +2360,6 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
return !!nodes_equal(a->v.nodes, b->v.nodes);
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- /* a's ->flags is the same as b's */
- if (a->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
- return true;
return a->v.preferred_node == b->v.preferred_node;
case MPOL_LOCAL:
return true;
@@ -2484,10 +2500,7 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
break;
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
- polnid = numa_node_id();
- else
- polnid = pol->v.preferred_node;
+ polnid = pol->v.preferred_node;
break;
case MPOL_LOCAL:
@@ -2858,9 +2871,6 @@ void numa_default_policy(void)
* Parse and format mempolicy from/to strings
*/
-/*
- * "local" is implemented internally by MPOL_PREFERRED with MPOL_F_LOCAL flag.
- */
static const char * const policy_modes[] =
{
[MPOL_DEFAULT] = "default",
@@ -3027,12 +3037,10 @@ void mpol_to_str(char *buffer, int maxlen, struct mempolicy *pol)
switch (mode) {
case MPOL_DEFAULT:
+ case MPOL_LOCAL:
break;
case MPOL_PREFERRED:
- if (flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
- mode = MPOL_LOCAL;
- else
- node_set(pol->v.preferred_node, nodes);
+ node_set(pol->v.preferred_node, nodes);
break;
case MPOL_BIND:
case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
--
2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-13 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-17 3:39 [PATCH v4 00/13] Introduced multi-preference mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 01/13] mm/mempolicy: Add comment for missing LOCAL Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] mm/mempolicy: convert single preferred_node to full nodemask Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 03/13] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-20 7:16 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-13 7:23 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-13 7:25 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2021-05-13 13:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Andi Kleen
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 04/13] mm/mempolicy: allow preferred code to take a nodemask Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-19 8:49 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/mempolicy: refactor rebind code for PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 06/13] mm/mempolicy: kill v.preferred_nodes Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:58 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 07/13] mm/mempolicy: handle MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY like BIND Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:01 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 08/13] mm/mempolicy: Create a page allocator for policy Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-15 8:17 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 09/13] mm/mempolicy: Thread allocation for many preferred Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 10/13] mm/mempolicy: VMA " Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 11/13] mm/mempolicy: huge-page " Feng Tang
2021-03-17 7:19 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-14 13:25 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-15 7:41 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 12/13] mm/mempolicy: Advertise new MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 13/13] mem/mempolicy: unify mpol_new_preferred() and mpol_new_preferred_many() Feng Tang
2021-04-14 11:21 ` [PATCH v4 00/13] Introduced multi-preference mempolicy Michal Hocko
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=20210513072545.GC44993@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).