From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@google.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:15:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y2KXkVmRWOpPT/MI@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkrBNzsorc9oCq1=ri0uq1xbQ+m+u2gQX5GYrb=Z7n4siA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 02-11-22 09:03:57, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:39 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 01-11-22 12:13:35, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> > [...]
> > > This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail
> > > about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE +
> > > explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a
> > > nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some
> > > node contained > some threshold number of pages.
> >
> > I would simply go with something like this (not even compile tested):
>
> Thanks, Michal. It is definitely an option. As I talked with Zach, I'm
> not sure whether it is worth making the code more complicated for such
> micro optimization or not. Removing __GFP_THISNODE or even removing
> the node balance code should be fine too IMHO. TBH I doubt there would
> be any noticeable difference.
I do agree that an explicit nodes (quasi)round robin sounds over
engineered. It makes some sense to try to target the prevalent node
though because this code can be executed from khugepaged and therefore
allocating with a completely different affinity than the original fault.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-02 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-31 18:31 [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined Yang Shi
2022-10-31 21:16 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-10-31 22:08 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-01 0:05 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-11-01 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-01 17:12 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-01 19:13 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-11-01 20:09 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-01 22:05 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-11-02 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-02 7:49 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-02 16:03 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-02 16:15 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2022-11-02 17:36 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-02 17:47 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-02 18:18 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-02 18:58 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-11-02 20:08 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-02 20:21 ` Zach O'Keefe
2022-11-03 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-03 17:13 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-03 7:51 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-02 7:14 ` Michal Hocko
2022-11-02 15:58 ` Yang Shi
2022-11-02 16:11 ` 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=Y2KXkVmRWOpPT/MI@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=zokeefe@google.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).