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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D036AC6FD1D for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 549796B0074; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4FA0D6B0075; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 399AF6B0078; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2689F6B0074 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 08:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88981617E2 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:09 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80578262058.03.9114D9D Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5B8180021 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=dYGfpPT4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=icpHnZpV; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of vbabka@suse.cz designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vbabka@suse.cz; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1679054767; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=6PwRF5jGpu+1tTOnVCWhJum42ZPWZ4cZsnTSiet66Cg=; b=OE2GfSDi6GjwKTkicL+YBut3OYPoGjAIngRwpag2J0qKy44Wsc1OR4zi9hOf5+XXgvlYRb 7IezgBTataGWi01PzZFtoAx6FPt0HQGv7UYvXUtB1NX7t0eG8xLDq/+aN1rjQ/yYjPrP5s LI2TWuSK7trYmbmCvddgRNsbuLQpThw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=dYGfpPT4; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=icpHnZpV; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of vbabka@suse.cz designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vbabka@suse.cz; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1679054767; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=uc+O7Jwsk1Fchs1ncnLLtvbQ3n7Kp82mvdb2qayFX+YdIQzzHRh26ow3dSf52deYnXxd9j rFQcU8+4Yk+5xrewVxqJes4/MEQiRf8lIPGEn4PLeO25ADuai8W3mHraIuBRdzwmh3czS+ JDJ9UmZ7aeOZu2wFBpXa4Xhh3+BvYMM= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560221FDDC; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1679054765; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6PwRF5jGpu+1tTOnVCWhJum42ZPWZ4cZsnTSiet66Cg=; b=dYGfpPT4WMSMZebdPdvo6iCoQzY6ypQEBvdLq+yorweDRLz4kKw6uL7WdsEPFrfIvYh28g GKWGBYdfnT7ep0xomHURF3vrTDA3eKOJNHr326rUrgcBqvMRFQDv4DtV6zZi9gkqRuM7Qv 9t8FOuGDHc3Xm772eAnOz0+Zsb5htWo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1679054765; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6PwRF5jGpu+1tTOnVCWhJum42ZPWZ4cZsnTSiet66Cg=; b=icpHnZpVJ7K61r5lnh3SyemtNwYEgTi+INIeQe+/M54feUZk+07i4WD6Z+cIYT+2mj4YiE FcF4tv2oH+yZqnCA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC091346F; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id VXo3Cq1XFGSBKAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:06:05 +0000 Message-ID: <8c700468-245d-72e9-99e7-b99d4547e6d8@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 13:06:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Reduce memory consumption in extreme scenarios Content-Language: en-US To: "chenjun (AM)" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cl@linux.com" , "penberg@kernel.org" , "rientjes@google.com" , "iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> Cc: "xuqiang (M)" , "Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab)" References: <20230314123403.100158-1-chenjun102@huawei.com> <0cad1ff3-8339-a3eb-fc36-c8bda1392451@suse.cz> <344c7521d72e4107b451c19b329e9864@huawei.com> From: Vlastimil Babka In-Reply-To: <344c7521d72e4107b451c19b329e9864@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Stat-Signature: ezssqctfc9hysrokq7fcpnke8xof98yo X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BD5B8180021 X-HE-Tag: 1679054766-338508 X-HE-Meta: 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 HQMBDVKM twxoM4PulZU1Z/BwoBvEMx9KDAWsOImRv7ZCUncT/PH6cUAaR6z0n7UWNP/EDJWKAA9z6ZHIV40IXA2dcu8UsMopsZYiyBIIgbMLcd1p9UY2AkCcLSo7x5kBqR2vVj/z4Bm6mruDYdSyzmVye7ka9UuWiUNgz0LiZDHwdwpfKq3FKSWJfJY5YMmYV656dYSY2bND0NzcS81oF/k41shfRLkKPWpp33ozQpnBeghfksyOfxcqhK5Xv9Fd6SBpxGVEznS1JqnfVcjvhuQi3Hj0mVzM2QjdSE7jaeXnw77nBdI3ADm+zG2/ae5CFyX9EdWrnBugJs7FTQOTu9cM= 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 3/17/23 12:32, chenjun (AM) wrote: > 在 2023/3/14 22:41, Vlastimil Babka 写道: >>> pc.flags = gfpflags; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * when (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) >>> + * 1) try to get a partial slab from target node with __GFP_THISNODE. >>> + * 2) if 1) failed, try to allocate a new slab from target node with >>> + * __GFP_THISNODE. >>> + * 3) if 2) failed, retry 1) and 2) without __GFP_THISNODE constraint. >>> + */ >>> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !(gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) && try_thisnode) >>> + pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE; >> >> Hmm I'm thinking we should also perhaps remove direct reclaim possibilities >> from the attempt 2). In your qemu test it should make no difference, as it >> fills everything with kernel memory that is not reclaimable. But in practice >> the target node might be filled with user memory, and I think it's better to >> quickly allocate on a different node than spend time in direct reclaim. So >> the following should work I think? >> >> pc.flags = GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE >> > > Hmm, Should it be that: > > pc.flags |= GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE No, we need to ignore the other reclaim-related flags that the caller passed, or it wouldn't work as intended. The danger is that we ignore some flag that would be necessary to pass, but I don't think there's any?