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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 8D89EC10F29 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514DC20714 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:56:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 514DC20714 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C4B926B0005; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BFC8B6B0006; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:56:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B115C6B0007; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:56:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0209.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.209]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E146B0005 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77057180AD806 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:56:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76605305700.22.mass60_52f8957212459 X-HE-Tag: mass60_52f8957212459 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2790 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:56:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8582ACA1; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Slub: Increased mem consumption on cpu,mem-less node powerpc guest To: bharata@linux.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Sachin Sant , Michal Hocko References: <20200317092624.GB22538@in.ibm.com> <20200317115339.GA26049@in.ibm.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <4088ae3c-4dfa-62ae-f56a-b46773788fc7@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:56:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200317115339.GA26049@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 3/17/20 12:53 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:56:28PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: >> Case 1: 2 node NUMA, node0 empty >> ================================ >> # numactl -H >> available: 2 nodes (0-1) >> node 0 cpus: >> node 0 size: 0 MB >> node 0 free: 0 MB >> node 1 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> node 1 size: 16294 MB >> node 1 free: 15453 MB >> node distances: >> node 0 1 >> 0: 10 40 >> 1: 40 10 >> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c >> index 17dc00e33115..888e4d245444 100644 >> --- a/mm/slub.c >> +++ b/mm/slub.c >> @@ -1971,10 +1971,8 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node, >> void *object; >> int searchnode = node; >> >> - if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) >> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || !node_present_pages(node)) >> searchnode = numa_mem_id(); >> - else if (!node_present_pages(node)) >> - searchnode = node_to_mem_node(node); > > For the above topology, I see this: > > node_to_mem_node(1) = 1 > node_to_mem_node(0) = 0 > node_to_mem_node(NUMA_NO_NODE) = 0 > > Looks like the last two cases (returning memory-less node 0) is the > problem here? I wonder why do you get a memory leak while Sachin in the same situation [1] gets a crash? I don't understand anything anymore. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/3381CD91-AB3D-4773-BA04-E7A072A63968@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > Regards, > Bharata. > >