Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Andi Kleen]

Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:


> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> 
> Is this a thing which all NUMA machines want to be doing?

Should be ok yes. The free_pages in zone check should catch the 
32bit NUMAs which only have lowmem in node 0.

I would like to have it for x86-64 too, please.

-Andi

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>> 
>> Is this a thing which all NUMA machines want to be doing?
> 
> Should be ok yes. The free_pages in zone check should catch the 
> 32bit NUMAs which only have lowmem in node 0.

Doesn't matter much either way - alloc_pages_node for anything should
point us to node 0.

M.

Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Anton Blanchard]

Hi,

Manfred had a patch to distribute kmallocs across nodes during boot.
I took it for a spin.

buddyinfo before:
Node 7, 0    2    1    1    0    2    1    2    1    2    1    2    741
Node 6, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    1    2    2    2    2   1002
Node 5, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    2    1    2    2    2   2006
Node 4, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    2    1    2    2    2   2006
Node 3, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    2    1    2    2    2   2006
Node 2, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    2    1    2    2    2   2006
Node 1, 0    0    0    2    0    2    1    1    2    2    2    2   1002
Node 0, 0    0   38    7    0    1    1    1    0    0    0    0   1998

buddyinfo after:
Node 7, 0    1    0    1    1    1    1    0    0    0    1    2    738
Node 6, 0    1    0    1    1    1    0    1    0    0    2    2   1002
Node 5, 0    0    0    1    1    1    1    0    0    0    2    2   2006
Node 4, 0    1    0    1    0    1    1    0    0    0    2    2   2006
Node 3, 0    0    0    1    0    1    1    0    0    0    2    2   2005
Node 2, 0    1    0    0    0    0    0    1    0    0    2    2   2006
Node 1, 0    2    1    1    0    1    1    1    0    0    2    2   1002
Node 0, 0   20   45    8    3    0    1    1    1    1    0    1   2004

Change in free memory due to patch:

Node 7 -54.08 MB
Node 6  -6.33 MB
Node 5  -6.09 MB
Node 4  -6.14 MB
Node 3 -22.15 MB
Node 2  -6.05 MB
Node 1  -6.12 MB
Node 0 107.35 MB

As you can see we gained over 100MB on node 0. Spreading boot time
allocations around also helps us to avoid node 0 becoming the hot node.

--

Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>

Distribute the memory allocations that happen during boot to all nodes.
The memory will be touched by all cpus, binding all allocs to the boot 
node is wrong.

--

--- 2.6/mm/page_alloc.c	2003-11-29 09:46:35.000000000 +0100
+++ build-2.6/mm/page_alloc.c	2003-11-29 11:34:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -681,6 +681,42 @@
 
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__alloc_pages);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+/* Early boot: Everything is done by one cpu, but the data structures will be
+ * used by all cpus - spread them on all nodes.
+ */
+static __init unsigned long get_boot_pages(unsigned int gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
+{
+static int nodenr;
+	int i = nodenr;
+	struct page *page;
+
+	for (;;) {
+		if (i > nodenr + numnodes)
+			return 0;
+		if (node_present_pages(i%numnodes)) {
+			struct zone **z;
+			/* The node contains memory. Check that there is 
+			 * memory in the intended zonelist.
+			 */
+			z = NODE_DATA(i%numnodes)->node_zonelists[gfp_mask & GFP_ZONEMASK].zones;
+			while (*z) {
+				if ( (*z)->free_pages > (1UL<<order))
+					goto found_node;
+				z++;
+			}
+		}
+		i++;
+	}
+found_node:
+	nodenr = i+1;
+	page = alloc_pages_node(i%numnodes, gfp_mask, order);
+	if (!page)
+		return 0;
+	return (unsigned long) page_address(page);
+}
+#endif
+
 /*
  * Common helper functions.
  */
@@ -688,6 +724,10 @@
 {
 	struct page * page;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
+	if (unlikely(!system_running))
+		return get_boot_pages(gfp_mask, order);
+#endif
 	page = alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order);
 	if (!page)
 		return 0;

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Andrew Morton]

Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Manfred had a patch to distribute kmallocs across nodes during boot.

He's a handy guy.

> ...
> 
> Change in free memory due to patch:
> 
> Node 7 -54.08 MB
> Node 6  -6.33 MB
> Node 5  -6.09 MB
> Node 4  -6.14 MB
> Node 3 -22.15 MB
> Node 2  -6.05 MB
> Node 1  -6.12 MB
> Node 0 107.35 MB

OK.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA

Is this a thing which all NUMA machines want to be doing?

> +static __init unsigned long get_boot_pages(unsigned int gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
> +{
> +static int nodenr;
> +	int i = nodenr;
> +	struct page *page;
> +
> +	for (;;) {
> +		if (i > nodenr + numnodes)
> +			return 0;
> +		if (node_present_pages(i%numnodes)) {
> +			struct zone **z;
> +			/* The node contains memory. Check that there is 
> +			 * memory in the intended zonelist.
> +			 */
> +			z = NODE_DATA(i%numnodes)->node_zonelists[gfp_mask & GFP_ZONEMASK].zones;
> +			while (*z) {
> +				if ( (*z)->free_pages > (1UL<<order))
> +					goto found_node;
> +				z++;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		i++;
> +	}
> +found_node:
> +	nodenr = i+1;
> +	page = alloc_pages_node(i%numnodes, gfp_mask, order);
> +	if (!page)
> +		return 0;
> +	return (unsigned long) page_address(page);
> +}
> +#endif

Should this not search for the emptiest node?

> @@ -688,6 +724,10 @@
>  {
>  	struct page * page;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +	if (unlikely(!system_running))
> +		return get_boot_pages(gfp_mask, order);
> +#endif

Is non-__init code allowed to call __init code?  I thought that caused
linkage errors on some setups.  Pretty sure about that.  I think, maybe.

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Anton Blanchard]

 
> Is this a thing which all NUMA machines want to be doing?

So far we have ppc64 and x86-64. I suspect the others will be OK with
it. 

> Should this not search for the emptiest node?

Allocating things round robin avoids a hot node where everything ends up
being allocated.

> Is non-__init code allowed to call __init code?  I thought that caused
> linkage errors on some setups.  Pretty sure about that.  I think, maybe.

Maybe. Its news to me.

Anton

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Andrew Morton]

Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
>
>  > Should this not search for the emptiest node?
> 
>  Allocating things round robin avoids a hot node where everything ends up
>  being allocated.

Have you any performance measurements for this patch?

>  > Is non-__init code allowed to call __init code?  I thought that caused
>  > linkage errors on some setups.  Pretty sure about that.  I think, maybe.
> 
>  Maybe. Its news to me.

I'll check.

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Martin Hicks]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 11:07:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> >  > Should this not search for the emptiest node?
> > 
> >  Allocating things round robin avoids a hot node where everything ends up
> >  being allocated.
> 
> Have you any performance measurements for this patch?

Any suggestions on what benchmark to run?

I tried the patch on Altix and saw similar balancing that Anton showed.
The machine was a 64-way (32 node) machine with 256GB RAM.

mh

-- 
Martin Hicks                Wild Open Source Inc.
mort@wildopensource.com     613-266-2296

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Andrew Morton]

Martin Hicks <mort@wildopensource.com> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 11:07:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >  > Should this not search for the emptiest node?
> > > 
> > >  Allocating things round robin avoids a hot node where everything ends up
> > >  being allocated.
> > 
> > Have you any performance measurements for this patch?
> 
> Any suggestions on what benchmark to run?

I guess SDET is the closest thing we have to a "mixed workload".

Re: Manfreds patch to distribute boot allocations across nodes

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:56:29 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

| Martin Hicks <mort@wildopensource.com> wrote:
| >
| > 
| > 
| > On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 11:07:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
| > > Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
| > > >
| > > >  > Should this not search for the emptiest node?
| > > > 
| > > >  Allocating things round robin avoids a hot node where everything ends up
| > > >  being allocated.
| > > 
| > > Have you any performance measurements for this patch?
| > 
| > Any suggestions on what benchmark to run?
| 
| I guess SDET is the closest thing we have to a "mixed workload".
| -


Cliff White says that re-aim should also work for this.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/re-aim-7/

or use the OSDL STP interface.

--
~Randy