| Message ID | 7928768f2658cd563978f5e5bf8109be1d559320.1697687357.git.zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | handle memoryless nodes more appropriately | expand |
On 19.10.23 09:36, Qi Zheng wrote: > In find_next_best_node(), We skipped the memoryless nodes > when building the zonelists of other normal nodes (N_NORMAL), > but did not skip the memoryless node itself when building > the zonelist. This will cause it to be traversed at runtime. > > For example, say we have node0 and node1, node0 is memoryless > node, then the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: > > [ 0.153005] Fallback order for Node 0: 0 1 > [ 0.153564] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 > > After this patch, we skip memoryless node0 entirely, then > the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: > > [ 0.155236] Fallback order for Node 0: 1 > [ 0.155806] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 > > So it becomes completely invisible, which will reduce runtime > overhead. > > And in this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless > node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though > this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain > in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in core MM as well. > > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/ > [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/ > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> > --- > mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index ee392a324802..e978272699d3 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -5052,8 +5052,11 @@ int find_next_best_node(int node, nodemask_t *used_node_mask) > int min_val = INT_MAX; > int best_node = NUMA_NO_NODE; > > - /* Use the local node if we haven't already */ > - if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask)) { > + /* > + * Use the local node if we haven't already. But for memoryless local > + * node, we should skip it and fallback to other nodes. > + */ > + if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask) && node_state(node, N_MEMORY)) { > node_set(node, *used_node_mask); > return node; > } Makes sense to me; I suspect that online_pages() will just to the right thing and call build_all_zonelists() to fix it up. Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Hi David, On 2023/10/19 16:07, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 19.10.23 09:36, Qi Zheng wrote: >> In find_next_best_node(), We skipped the memoryless nodes >> when building the zonelists of other normal nodes (N_NORMAL), >> but did not skip the memoryless node itself when building >> the zonelist. This will cause it to be traversed at runtime. >> >> For example, say we have node0 and node1, node0 is memoryless >> node, then the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: >> >> [ 0.153005] Fallback order for Node 0: 0 1 >> [ 0.153564] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 >> >> After this patch, we skip memoryless node0 entirely, then >> the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: >> >> [ 0.155236] Fallback order for Node 0: 1 >> [ 0.155806] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 >> >> So it becomes completely invisible, which will reduce runtime >> overhead. >> >> And in this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless >> node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though >> this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain >> in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in core MM as well. >> >> [1]. >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/ >> [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> >> --- >> mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >> index ee392a324802..e978272699d3 100644 >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >> @@ -5052,8 +5052,11 @@ int find_next_best_node(int node, nodemask_t >> *used_node_mask) >> int min_val = INT_MAX; >> int best_node = NUMA_NO_NODE; >> - /* Use the local node if we haven't already */ >> - if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask)) { >> + /* >> + * Use the local node if we haven't already. But for memoryless >> local >> + * node, we should skip it and fallback to other nodes. >> + */ >> + if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask) && node_state(node, >> N_MEMORY)) { >> node_set(node, *used_node_mask); >> return node; >> } > > Makes sense to me; I suspect that online_pages() will just to the right > thing and call build_all_zonelists() to fix it up. Yes, the find_next_best_node() will be called by build_all_zonelists(). > > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Thanks. >
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index ee392a324802..e978272699d3 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -5052,8 +5052,11 @@ int find_next_best_node(int node, nodemask_t *used_node_mask) int min_val = INT_MAX; int best_node = NUMA_NO_NODE; - /* Use the local node if we haven't already */ - if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask)) { + /* + * Use the local node if we haven't already. But for memoryless local + * node, we should skip it and fallback to other nodes. + */ + if (!node_isset(node, *used_node_mask) && node_state(node, N_MEMORY)) { node_set(node, *used_node_mask); return node; }
In find_next_best_node(), We skipped the memoryless nodes when building the zonelists of other normal nodes (N_NORMAL), but did not skip the memoryless node itself when building the zonelist. This will cause it to be traversed at runtime. For example, say we have node0 and node1, node0 is memoryless node, then the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: [ 0.153005] Fallback order for Node 0: 0 1 [ 0.153564] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 After this patch, we skip memoryless node0 entirely, then the fallback order of node0 and node1 as follows: [ 0.155236] Fallback order for Node 0: 1 [ 0.155806] Fallback order for Node 1: 1 So it becomes completely invisible, which will reduce runtime overhead. And in this way, we will not try to allocate pages from memoryless node0, then the panic mentioned in [1] will also be fixed. Even though this problem has been solved by dropping the NODE_MIN_SIZE constrain in x86 [2], it would be better to fix it in core MM as well. [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230212110305.93670-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/ [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231017062215.171670-1-rppt@kernel.org/ Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> --- mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)