From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: alloc_pages_node(... GFP_KERNEL | GFP_THISNODE ...) fails Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:36:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20090529163634.GW1065@one.firstfloor.org> References: <200905290230.16306.max@laiers.net> <200905290309.33194.max@laiers.net> <20090529150157.GT1065@one.firstfloor.org> <77c923d17135ad7a3be01d4661b51210.squirrel@mlaier.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <77c923d17135ad7a3be01d4661b51210.squirrel@mlaier.homeunix.org> Sender: linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Max Laier Cc: Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > Am Fr, 29.05.2009, 17:01, schrieb Andi Kleen: > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:54:06AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Max Laier wrote: > >> > >> > Same result. "numa_hit" in node 7 increases, while "nr_free_pages" > >> stays > >> > the same. Anything else you'd want me to watch out for? > >> > >> That looks like a bug in fake numa. > > > > I also got some reports of fake numa being a bit broken recently. > > That might have been me too - I sent you a private mail earlier this week. No that was from someone else. Also I don't have an email from you in my mailbox, so I didn't see it. > I guess the question is, what is special about my allocation in KVM as Define "in KVM"? Inside the guest? > opposed to the allocation in the test module (that works as expected). I thought you complained that the test module didn't increase the numastat counters as expected? > The userland test tools from the numactl package also work as expected in > membind mode. > > Also, I have been reading the fake numa setup back and forth and I really To be honest I don't understand it anymore either since it got so much new stuff a couple of years back. All I can say it worked when I wrote it originally and set up the nodes in exactly the same way as the native NUMA setup on x86-64. > I'll take another look at the fake numa setup later today. Any chance > somebody could give the KVM thing a try on real numa hardware? Though > there are probably not that many systems that have real numa and kvm > support ... dual socket Gainestown setup anyone? I don't understand. There are lots of KVM capable NUMA systems. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.