Re: [RFC PATCH V5] mm readahead: Fix readahead fail for no localmemory and limit readahead pages

[Raghavendra K T]

On 02/07/2014 05:28 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > > > > > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD   4096UL
>
> > Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it
> > racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would
> > result in, oops, a page allocation on the wrong node.
> >
> > This stands out to me, though, because you're expecting the calculation to
> > be correct for a specific node.
> >
> > The patch is still wrong, though, it should just do
> >
> > 	int node = ACCESS_ONCE(numa_mem_id());
> > 	return min(nr, (node_page_state(node, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
> > 		        node_page_state(node, NR_FREE_PAGES)) / 2);
> >
> > since we want to readahead based on the cpu's local node, the comment
> > saying we're reading ahead onto "remote memory" is wrong since a
> > memoryless node has local affinity to numa_mem_id().
>
> Oops, forgot about the MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD which needs to be factored in
> as well, but this handles the bound on local node's statistics.

So following discussion TODO for my patch is:

1) Update the changelog with user visible impact of the patch.
(Andrew's suggestion)
2) Add ACCESS_ONCE to numa_node_id().
3) Change the "readahead into remote memory" part of the documentation
which is misleading.

( I feel no need to add numa_mem_id() since we would specifically limit
the readahead with MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD in memoryless cpu cases).

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/