From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MPOL_BIND on memory only nodes
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:24:54 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57FF59EE.9050508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161012131626.GL17128@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 10/12/2016 06:46 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-10-16 11:43:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 12-10-16 14:55:24, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> [...]
>>> Why we insist on __GFP_THISNODE ?
>>
>> AFAIU __GFP_THISNODE just overrides the given node to the policy
>> nodemask in case the current node is not part of that node mask. In
>> other words we are ignoring the given node and use what the policy says.
>> I can see how this can be confusing especially when confronting the
>> documentation:
>>
>> * __GFP_THISNODE forces the allocation to be satisified from the requested
>> * node with no fallbacks or placement policy enforcements.
>
> You made me think and look into this deeper. I came to the conclusion
> that this is actually a relict from the past. policy_zonelist is called
> only from 3 places:
> - huge_zonelist - never should do __GFP_THISNODE when going this path
> - alloc_pages_vma - which shouldn't depend on __GFP_THISNODE either
> - alloc_pages_current - which uses default_policy id __GFP_THISNODE is
> used
>
> So AFAICS this is essentially a dead code or I am missing something. Mel
> do you remember why we needed it in the past? I would be really tempted
> to just get rid of this confusing code and this instead:
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index ad1c96ac313c..98beec47bba9 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1679,25 +1679,17 @@ static nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy)
> static struct zonelist *policy_zonelist(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy,
> int nd)
> {
> - switch (policy->mode) {
> - case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> - if (!(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
> - nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
> - break;
> - case MPOL_BIND:
> + if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
> + nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
> + else {
> /*
> - * Normally, MPOL_BIND allocations are node-local within the
> - * allowed nodemask. However, if __GFP_THISNODE is set and the
> - * current node isn't part of the mask, we use the zonelist for
> - * the first node in the mask instead.
> + * __GFP_THISNODE shouldn't even be used with the bind policy because
> + * we might easily break the expectation to stay on the requested node
> + * and not break the policy.
> */
> - if (unlikely(gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) &&
> - unlikely(!node_isset(nd, policy->v.nodes)))
> - nd = first_node(policy->v.nodes);
> - break;
> - default:
> - BUG();
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(polic->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp && __GFP_THISNODE));
> }
> +
> return node_zonelist(nd, gfp);
> }
Which makes the function look like this. Even with these changes, MPOL_BIND is
still going to pick up the local node's zonelist instead of the first node in
policy->v.nodes nodemask. It completely ignores policy->v.nodes which it should
not.
/* Return a zonelist indicated by gfp for node representing a mempolicy */
static struct zonelist *policy_zonelist(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy,
int nd)
{
if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && !(policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL))
nd = policy->v.preferred_node;
else {
/*
* __GFP_THISNODE shouldn't even be used with the bind policy because
* we might easily break the expectation to stay on the requested node
* and not break the policy.
*/
WARN_ON_ONCE(polic->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp && __GFP_THISNODE));
}
return node_zonelist(nd, gfp);
}
--
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:[~2016-10-13 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-12 9:25 MPOL_BIND on memory only nodes Anshuman Khandual
2016-10-12 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12 10:38 ` Anshuman Khandual
2016-10-12 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12 13:16 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 9:54 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2016-10-13 10:07 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 10:58 ` Anshuman Khandual
2016-10-13 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 10:24 ` Mel Gorman
2016-10-13 12:38 ` 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=57FF59EE.9050508@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--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 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).