From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F223C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CA564F0A for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 00CA564F0A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 562B46B0005; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 512F86B0006; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:14:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3B38E6B0007; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:14:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0026.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1C66B0005 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17949898 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:14:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77881480068.22.0ED7D21 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589762000399 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:14:32 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: ubINGuA0lhbLVBVcCENlWMSiEg2OU5roWKJTrutNdEwyiq9lr2fGZ5oTqIVl3ZLlnbX0oZQvWE cb7YGQDwRNTg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9912"; a="187422011" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,222,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="187422011" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Mar 2021 00:14:30 -0800 IronPort-SDR: jnMXE6gPeFViG/ZGPK0mY1TRLxsBwF/Exx6fMMUsMNpIh/gEJME9hz7FzNSpoMJCm+nSoopBfm 3G+Qm4LKqgeQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,222,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="407667847" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.165]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2021 00:14:15 -0800 Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:14:14 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Michal Hocko , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , "Hansen, Dave" , Andi leen , "Williams, Dan J" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RFC 14/14] mm: speedup page alloc for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY by adding a NO_SLOWPATH gfp bit Message-ID: <20210304081414.GC43191@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20210303120717.GA16736@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210303121833.GB16736@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210303131832.GB78458@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210303134644.GC78458@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210303163141.v5wu2sfo2zj2qqsw@intel.com> <20210303172250.wbp47skyuf6r37wi@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210303172250.wbp47skyuf6r37wi@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 589762000399 X-Stat-Signature: hiy3s78bgqpcnq1isz3jwfan6dm6cnfa Received-SPF: none (intel.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf18; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mga03.intel.com; client-ip=134.134.136.65 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1614845672-689178 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:22:50AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > One thing I tried which can fix the slowness is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + gfp_mask &= ~(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which explicitly clears the 2 kinds of reclaim. And I thought it's too > > > > > > > > hacky and didn't mention it in the commit log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearing __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM would be the right way to achieve > > > > > > > GFP_NOWAIT semantic. Why would you want to exclude kswapd as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > When I tried gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, the slowness couldn't > > > > > > be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > I just double checked by rerun the test, 'gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM' > > > > > can also accelerate the allocation much! though is still a little slower than > > > > > this patch. Seems I've messed some of the tries, and sorry for the confusion! > > > > > > > > > > Could this be used as the solution? or the adding another fallback_nodemask way? > > > > > but the latter will change the current API quite a bit. > > > > > > > > I haven't got to the whole series yet. The real question is whether the > > > > first attempt to enforce the preferred mask is a general win. I would > > > > argue that it resembles the existing single node preferred memory policy > > > > because that one doesn't push heavily on the preferred node either. So > > > > dropping just the direct reclaim mode makes some sense to me. > > > > > > > > IIRC this is something I was recommending in an early proposal of the > > > > feature. > > > > > > My assumption [FWIW] is that the usecases we've outlined for multi-preferred > > > would want more heavy pushing on the preference mask. However, maybe the uapi > > > could dictate how hard to try/not try. > > > > What does that mean and what is the expectation from the kernel to be > > more or less cast in stone? > > > > (I'm not positive I've understood your question, so correct me if I > misunderstood) > > I'm not sure there is a stone-cast way to define it nor should we. At the very > least though, something in uapi that has a general mapping to GFP flags > (specifically around reclaim) for the first round of allocation could make > sense. > > In my head there are 3 levels of request possible for multiple nodes: > 1. BIND: Those nodes or die. > 2. Preferred hard: Those nodes and I'm willing to wait. Fallback if impossible. > 3. Preferred soft: Those nodes but I don't want to wait. > > Current UAPI in the series doesn't define a distinction between 2, and 3. As I > understand the change, Feng is defining the behavior to be #3, which makes #2 > not an option. I sort of punted on defining it entirely, in the beginning. As discussed earlier in the thread, one less hacky solution is to clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM bit so that it won't go into direct reclaim, but still wakeup the kswapd of target nodes and retry, which sits now between 'Preferred hard' and 'Preferred soft' :) For current MPOL_PREFERRED, its semantic is also 'Preferred hard', that it will check free memory of other nodes before entering slowpath waiting. Thanks, Feng