All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: actually ignore mempolicies for high priority allocations
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:25:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180816092507.GA1719@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180815151652.05d4c4684b7dff2282b5c046@linux-foundation.org>

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 03:16:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Subject: mm, page_alloc: actually ignore mempolicies for high priority allocations
> 
> The __alloc_pages_slowpath() function has for a long time contained code
> to ignore node restrictions from memory policies for high priority
> allocations.  The current code that resets the zonelist iterator however
> does effectively nothing after commit 7810e6781e0f ("mm, page_alloc: do
> not break __GFP_THISNODE by zonelist reset") removed a buggy zonelist
> reset.  Even before that commit, mempolicy restrictions were still not
> ignored, as they are passed in ac->nodemask which is untouched by the
> code.
> 
> We can either remove the code, or make it work as intended.  Since
> ac->nodemask can be set from task's mempolicy via alloc_pages_current()
> and thus also alloc_pages(), it may indeed affect kernel allocations, and
> it makes sense to ignore it to allow progress for high priority
> allocations.
> 
> Thus, this patch resets ac->nodemask to NULL in such cases.  This assumes
> all callers can handle it (i.e.  there are no guarantees as in the case of
> __GFP_THISNODE) which seems to be the case.  The same assumption is
> already present in check_retry_cpuset() for some time.
> 
> The expected effect is that high priority kernel allocations in the
> context of userspace tasks (e.g.  OOM victims) restricted by mempolicies
> will have higher chance to succeed if they are restricted to nodes with
> depleted memory, while there are other nodes with free memory left.
> 
> 
> Ot's not a new intention, but for the first time the code will match the
> intention, AFAICS.  It was intended by commit 183f6371aac2 ("mm: ignore
> mempolicies when using ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK") in v3.6 but I think it never
> really worked, as mempolicy restriction was already encoded in nodemask,
> not zonelist, at that time.
> 
> So originally that was for ALLOC_NO_WATERMARK only.  Then it was adjusted
> by e46e7b77c909 ("mm, page_alloc: recalculate the preferred zoneref if the
> context can ignore memory policies") and cd04ae1e2dc8 ("mm, oom: do not
> rely on TIF_MEMDIE for memory reserves access") to the current state.  So
> even GFP_ATOMIC would now ignore mempolicies after the initial attempts
> fail - if the code worked as people thought it does.
> 
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180612122624.8045-1-vbabka@suse.cz
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

FWIW, I thought I acked this already.

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-16  9:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-12 12:26 [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: actually ignore mempolicies for high priority allocations Vlastimil Babka
2018-06-13 19:42 ` David Rientjes
2018-06-14 12:32   ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-08-15 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2018-08-16  9:25   ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2018-08-16 10:03   ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-18 13:02     ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-20 10:41       ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-20 10:52         ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-20 11:04           ` 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=20180816092507.GA1719@techsingularity.net \
    --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.