From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/thp: Always allocate transparent hugepages on local node
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:17:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141125141702.GB11841@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411241317430.21237@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:33:42PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > > This make sure that we try to allocate hugepages from local node. If
> > > we can't we fallback to small page allocation based on
> > > mempolicy. This is based on the observation that allocating pages
> > > on local node is more beneficial that allocating hugepages on remote node.
> >
> > Local node on allocation is not necessary local node for use.
> > If policy says to use a specific node[s], we should follow.
> >
>
> True, and the interaction between thp and mempolicies is fragile: if a
> process has a MPOL_BIND mempolicy over a set of nodes, that does not
> necessarily mean that we want to allocate thp remotely if it will always
> be accessed remotely. It's simple to benchmark and show that remote
> access latency of a hugepage can exceed that of local pages. MPOL_BIND
> itself is a policy of exclusion, not inclusion, and it's difficult to
> define when local pages and its cost of allocation is better than remote
> thp.
>
> For MPOL_BIND, if the local node is allowed then thp should be forced from
> that node, if the local node is disallowed then allocate from any node in
> the nodemask. For MPOL_INTERLEAVE, I think we should only allocate thp
> from the next node in order, otherwise fail the allocation and fallback to
> small pages. Is this what you meant as well?
Correct.
> > I think it makes sense to force local allocation if policy is interleave
> > or if current node is in preferred or bind set.
> >
>
> If local allocation were forced for MPOL_INTERLEAVE and all memory is
> initially faulted by cpus on a single node, then the policy has
> effectively become MPOL_DEFAULT, there's no interleave.
You're right. I don't have much experience with mempolicy code.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-25 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-24 14:19 [RFC PATCH] mm/thp: Always allocate transparent hugepages on local node Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-11-24 15:03 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-11-24 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2014-11-25 14:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2014-11-27 6:32 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=20141125141702.GB11841@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).