From: hejianet <hejianet@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:01:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <84c018b5-bf63-6057-e39f-c8e0935bca09@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161220091814.GC3769@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 20/12/2016 5:18 PM, 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.
>
> If this is correct then it should be a part of the changelog. I also
> cannot say I would like the fix. First of all I am not sure
> __GFP_OTHER_NODE is a good idea at all. How is an explicit usage of the
> flag any different from an explicit __alloc_pages_node(non_local_nid)?
> In both cases we ask for an allocation on a remote node and successful
> allocation is a NUMA_HIT and NUMA_OTHER.
>
> That being said, why cannot we simply do the following? As a bonus, we
> can get rid of a barely used __GFP_OTHER_NODE. Also the number of
> branches will stay same.
Yes, I agree maybe we can get rid of __GFP_OTHER_NODE if no objections
Seems currently it is only used for hugepage and statistics
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 429855be6ec9..f035d5c8b864 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2583,25 +2583,17 @@ int __isolate_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> * Update NUMA hit/miss statistics
> *
> * Must be called with interrupts disabled.
> - *
> - * When __GFP_OTHER_NODE is set assume the node of the preferred
> - * zone is the local node. This is useful for daemons who allocate
> - * memory on behalf of other processes.
> */
> static inline void zone_statistics(struct zone *preferred_zone, struct zone *z,
> gfp_t flags)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> - int local_nid = numa_node_id();
> - enum zone_stat_item local_stat = NUMA_LOCAL;
> -
> - if (unlikely(flags & __GFP_OTHER_NODE)) {
> - local_stat = NUMA_OTHER;
> - local_nid = preferred_zone->node;
> - }
> + if (z->node == preferred_zone->node) {
> + enum zone_stat_item local_stat = NUMA_LOCAL;
>
> - if (z->node == local_nid) {
> __inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_HIT);
> + if (z->node != numa_node_id())
> + local_stat = NUMA_OTHER;
> __inc_zone_state(z, local_stat);
> } else {
> __inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_MISS);
I thought the logic here is different
Here is the zone_statistics() before introducing __GFP_OTHER_NODE:
if (z->zone_pgdat == preferred_zone->zone_pgdat) {
__inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_HIT);
} else {
__inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_MISS);
__inc_zone_state(preferred_zone, NUMA_FOREIGN);
}
if (z->node == numa_node_id())
__inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_LOCAL);
else
__inc_zone_state(z, NUMA_OTHER);
B.R.
Jia
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-21 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-12 5:59 [PATCH RFC 0/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data Jia He
2016-12-12 5:59 ` [PATCH RFC 1/1] " Jia He
2016-12-20 9:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-20 13:10 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-20 13:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-20 14:28 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-20 14:35 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-20 14:49 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-20 14:54 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-21 7:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 8:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix remote numa hits statistics Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 8:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: get rid of __GFP_OTHER_NODE Michal Hocko
2017-01-02 14:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-29 11:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix remote numa hits statistics Mel Gorman
2016-12-29 12:28 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-02 14:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-01-02 14:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-02 15:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-20 14:42 ` [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm, page_alloc: fix incorrect zone_statistics data Mel Gorman
2016-12-20 15:13 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-12-21 3:01 ` hejianet [this message]
2016-12-20 12:31 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-21 3:07 ` hejianet
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=84c018b5-bf63-6057-e39f-c8e0935bca09@gmail.com \
--to=hejianet@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).