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=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 BB9F8C07E85 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842B320892 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:06:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 842B320892 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726071AbeLGJGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:06:24 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50254 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725978AbeLGJGX (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:06:23 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B0CADE0; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: MADV_HUGEPAGE vs. NUMA semantic (was: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression) To: Michal Hocko , Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , mgorman@techsingularity.net, ying.huang@intel.com, s.priebe@profihost.ag, Linux List Kernel Mailing , alex.williamson@redhat.com, lkp@01.org, David Rientjes , kirill@shutemov.name, Andrew Morton , zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu References: <64a4aec6-3275-a716-8345-f021f6186d9b@suse.cz> <20181204104558.GV23260@techsingularity.net> <20181205204034.GB11899@redhat.com> <20181205233632.GE11899@redhat.com> <20181206091405.GD1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181207074954.GR1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@suse.cz; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+ 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABzSFWbGFzdGltaWwg QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBzdXNlLmNvbT7CwZcEEwEKAEECGwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQAC HgECF4ACGQEWIQSpQNQ0mSwujpkQPVAiT6fnzIKmZAUCWi/zTwUJBbOLuQAKCRAiT6fnzIKm ZIpED/4jRN/6LKZZIT4R2xoou0nJkBGVA3nfb+mUMgi3uwn/zC+o6jjc3ShmP0LQ0cdeuSt/ t2ytstnuARTFVqZT4/IYzZgBsLM8ODFY5vGfPw00tsZMIfFuVPQX3xs0XgLEHw7/1ZCVyJVr mTzYmV3JruwhMdUvIzwoZ/LXjPiEx1MRdUQYHAWwUfsl8lUZeu2QShL3KubR1eH6lUWN2M7t VcokLsnGg4LTajZzZfq2NqCKEQMY3JkAmOu/ooPTrfHCJYMF/5dpi8YF1CkQF/PVbnYbPUuh dRM0m3NzPtn5DdyfFltJ7fobGR039+zoCo6dFF9fPltwcyLlt1gaItfX5yNbOjX3aJSHY2Vc A5T+XAVC2sCwj0lHvgGDz/dTsMM9Ob/6rRJANlJPRWGYk3WVWnbgW8UejCWtn1FkiY/L/4qJ UsqkId8NkkVdVAenCcHQmOGjRQYTpe6Cf4aQ4HGNDeWEm3H8Uq9vmHhXXcPLkxBLRbGDSHyq vUBVaK+dAwAsXn/5PlGxw1cWtur1ep7RDgG3vVQDhIOpAXAg6HULjcbWpBEFaoH720oyGmO5 kV+yHciYO3nPzz/CZJzP5Ki7Q1zqBb/U6gib2at5Ycvews+vTueYO+rOb9sfD8BFTK386LUK uce7E38owtgo/V2GV4LMWqVOy1xtCB6OAUfnGDU2EM7ATQRbGTU1AQgAn0H6UrFiWcovkh6E XVcl+SeqyO6JHOPm+e9Wu0Vw+VIUvXZVUVVQLa1PQDUi6j00ChlcR66g9/V0sPIcSutacPKf dKYOBvzd4rlhL8rfrdEsQw5ApZxrA8kYZVMhFmBRKAa6wos25moTlMKpCWzTH84+WO5+ziCT sTUZASAToz3RdunTD+vQcHj0GqNTPAHK63sfbAB2I0BslZkXkY1RLb/YhuA6E7JyEd2pilZO rIuBGl/5q2qSakgnAVFWFBR/DO27JuAksYnq+aH8vI0xGvwn75KqSk4UzAkDzWSmO4ZHuahK tQgZNsMYV+PGayRBX9b9zbldzopoLBdqHc4njQARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmFiEEqUDUNJksLo6Z ED1QIk+n58yCpmQFAlsZNTUCGwwFCQPCZwAACgkQIk+n58yCpmQ83g/9Frg1sRMdGPn98zV+ O2eC3h0p5f/oxxQ8MhG5znwHoW4JDG2TuxfcQuz7X7Dd5JWscjlw4VFJ2DD+IrDAGLHwPhCr RyfKalnrbYokvbClM9EuU1oUuh7k+Sg5ECNXEsamW9AiWGCaKWNDdHre3Lf4xl+RJWxghOVW RiUdpLA/a3yDvJNVr6rxkDHQ1P24ZZz/VKDyP+6g8aty2aWEU0YFNjI+rqYZb2OppDx6fdma YnLDcIfDFnkVlDmpznnGCyEqLLyMS3GH52AH13zMT9L9QYgT303+r6QQpKBIxAwn8Jg8dAlV OLhgeHXKr+pOQdFf6iu2sXlUR4MkO/5KWM1K0jFR2ug8Pb3aKOhowVMBT64G0TXhQ/kX4tZ2 ZF0QZLUCHU3Cigvbu4AWWVMNDEOGD/4sn9OoHxm6J04jLUHFUpFKDcjab4NRNWoHLsuLGjve Gdbr2RKO2oJ5qZj81K7os0/5vTAA4qHDP2EETAQcunTn6aPlkUnJ8aw6I1Rwyg7/XsU7gQHF IM/cUMuWWm7OUUPtJeR8loxZiZciU7SMvN1/B9ycPMFs/A6EEzyG+2zKryWry8k7G/pcPrFx O2PkDPy3YmN1RfpIX2HEmnCEFTTCsKgYORangFu/qOcXvM83N+2viXxG4mjLAMiIml1o2lKV cqmP8roqufIAj+Ohhzs= Message-ID: <779efc07-cac0-5d36-72fc-11d99060cac7@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:06:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181207074954.GR1286@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/7/18 8:49 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> But *that* in turn makes for other possible questions: >> >> - if the reason we couldn't get a local hugepage is that we're simply >> out of local memory (huge *or* small), then maybe a remote hugepage is >> better. >> >> Note that this now implies that the choice can be an issue of "did >> the hugepage allocation fail due to fragmentation, or due to the node >> being low of memory" > How exactly do you tell? Many systems are simply low on memory due to > caching. A clean pagecache is quite cheap to reclaim but it can be more > expensive to fault in. Do we consider it to be a viable target? Compaction can report if it failed (more precisely: was skipped) due to low memory, or for other reasons. It doesn't distinguish how easily reclaimable is the memory, but I don't think we should reclaim anything (see below). >> and there is the other question that I asked in the other thread >> (before subject edit): >> >> - how local is the load to begin with? >> >> Relatively shortlived processes - or processes that are explicitly >> bound to a node - might have different preferences than some >> long-lived process where the CPU bounces around, and might have >> different trade-offs for the local vs remote question too. > Agreed > >> So just based on David's numbers, and some wild handwaving on my part, >> a slightly more complex, but still very sensible default might be >> something like >> >> 1) try to do a cheap local node hugepage allocation >> >> Rationale: everybody agrees this is the best case. >> >> But if that fails: >> >> 2) look at compacting and the local node, but not very hard. >> >> If there's lots of memory on the local node, but synchronous >> compaction doesn't do anything easily, just fall back to small pages. > Do we reclaim at this stage or this is mostly GFP_NOWAIT attempt? I would expect no reclaim, because for non-THP faults we also don't reclaim the local node before trying to allocate from remote node. If somebody wants such behavior they can enable the node reclaim mode. THP faults shouldn't be different in this regard, right?