Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/2] gfp: use the best near online node if the target node is offline

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki]

On 2015/04/25 5:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:58:33 +0800 Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Since the change to the cpu <--> mapping (map the cpu to the physical
> > node for all possible at the boot), the node of cpu may be not present,
> > so we use the best near online node if the node is not present in the low
> > level allocation APIs.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -298,9 +298,31 @@ __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >   	return __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL);
> >   }
> >
> > +static int find_near_online_node(int node)
> > +{
> > +	int n, val;
> > +	int min_val = INT_MAX;
> > +	int best_node = -1;
> > +
> > +	for_each_online_node(n) {
> > +		val = node_distance(node, n);
> > +
> > +		if (val < min_val) {
> > +			min_val = val;
> > +			best_node = n;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return best_node;
> > +}
>
> This should be `inline' if it's in a header file.
>
> But it is far too large to be inlined anyway - please move it to a .c file.
>
> And please document it.  A critical thing to describe is how we
> determine whether a node is "near".  There are presumably multiple ways
> in which we could decide that a node is "near" (number of hops, minimum
> latency, ...).  Which one did you choose, and why?
>
> >   static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >   						unsigned int order)
> >   {
> > +	/* Offline node, use the best near online node */
> > +	if (!node_online(nid))
> > +		nid = find_near_online_node(nid);
> > +
> >   	/* Unknown node is current node */
> >   	if (nid < 0)
> >   		nid = numa_node_id();
> > @@ -311,7 +333,11 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >   static inline struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >   						unsigned int order)
> >   {
> > -	VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid));
> > +	/* Offline node, use the best near online node */
> > +	if (!node_online(nid))
> > +		nid = find_near_online_node(nid);

In above VM_BUG_ON(), !node_online(nid) is the bug.

> > +
> > +	VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
> >
> >   	return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
> >   }
>
> Ouch.  These functions are called very frequently, and adding overhead
> to them is a big deal.  And the patch even adds overhead to non-x86
> architectures which don't benefit from it!
>
> Is there no way this problem can be fixed somewhere else?  Preferably
> by fixing things up at hotplug time.

I agree. the results should be cached. If necessary, in per-cpu line.


Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/