From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756755AbaIEKas (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:30:48 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46046 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756478AbaIEKaq (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:30:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 11:30:42 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Fengguang Wu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: Default to node-ordering on 64-bit NUMA machines Message-ID: <20140905103041.GH17501@suse.de> References: <20140901125551.GI12424@suse.de> <20140902135120.GC29501@cmpxchg.org> <20140902152143.GL12424@suse.de> <20140904152915.GB10794@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140904152915.GB10794@cmpxchg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:29:29AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:21:43PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:51:20AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > I cannot find a good reason to incur a performance penalty on all 64-bit NUMA > > > > machines in case someone throws a brain damanged TV or graphics card in there. > > > > This patch defaults to node-ordering on 64-bit NUMA machines. I was tempted > > > > to make it default everywhere but I understand that some embedded arches may > > > > be using 32-bit NUMA where I cannot predict the consequences. > > > > > > This patch is a step in the right direction, but I'm not too fond of > > > further fragmenting this code and where it applies, while leaving all > > > the complexity from the heuristics and the zonelist building in, just > > > on spec. Could we at least remove the heuristics too? If anybody is > > > affected by this, they can always override the default on the cmdline. > > > > I see no problem with deleting the heuristics. Default node for 64-bit > > and default zone for 32-bit sound ok to you? > > Is there a strong reason against defaulting both to node order? Zone > ordering, if anything, is a niche application. We might even be able > to remove it in the future. We still have the backup of allowing the > user to explicitely request zone ordering on the commandline, should > someone depend on it unexpectedly. Low memory depletion is the reason to default to zone order on 32-bit NUMA. If processes on node 0 deplete the Normal zone from normal activity then other nodes must keep reclaiming from Normal for all kernel allocations. The problem is worse if CONFIG_HIGHPTE is not set. A default of node-ordering on 32-bit NUMA increases low memory pressure leading to increased reclaim and potentially easier to trigger OOM. I expect this problem was worse in the past when the normal zone could be filled with dirty pages under writeback. However low memory pressure is still enough of a concern that I'm wary of changing the default of 32-bit NUMA without knowing who even cares about 32-bit NUMA. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs