From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com (mail-qa0-f46.google.com [209.85.216.46]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6513E6B0039 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k15so1050911qaq.19 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com. [32.97.182.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ew5si532918qab.87.2014.02.19.10.05.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:05:23 -0500 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A14538C803B for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:05:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s1JI4uXx6488550 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:05:22 GMT Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s1JGTrPI024056 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:29:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:24:38 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: ppc: RECLAIM_DISTANCE 10? Message-ID: <20140219162438.GB27108@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140218090658.GA28130@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140218233404.GB10844@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140218235800.GC10844@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Anton Blanchard , LKML On 18.02.2014 [17:43:38 -0800], David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > How about the following? > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > index 5de4337..1a0eced 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -1854,7 +1854,8 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allows_reclaim(int nid) > > int i; > > > > for_each_online_node(i) > > - if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE) > > + if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE || > > + !NODE_DATA(i)->node_present_pages) > > node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes); > > else > > zone_reclaim_mode = 1; > > [ I changed the above from NODE_DATA(nid) -> NODE_DATA(i) as you caught > so we're looking at the right code. ] > > That can't be right, it would allow reclaiming from a memoryless node. I > think what you want is Gah, you're right. > for_each_online_node(i) { > if (!node_present_pages(i)) > continue; > if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE) { > node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes); > continue; > } > /* Always try to reclaim locally */ > zone_reclaim_mode = 1; > } > > but we really should be able to do for_each_node_state(i, N_MEMORY) here > and memoryless nodes should already be excluded from that mask. Yep, I found that afterwards, which simplifies the logic. I'll add this to my series :) > > I think it's safe to move init_zone_allows_reclaim, because I don't > > think any allocates are occurring here that could cause us to reclaim > > anyways, right? Moving it allows us to safely reference > > node_present_pages. > > > > Yeah, this is fine. Thanks, Nish -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org