mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <tj@kernel.org>,
	<mingo@redhat.com>, <x86@kernel.org>, <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	<hpa@zytor.com>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	<laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	<izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/2] gfp: use the best near online node if the target node is offline
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:01:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150424130153.f7b494f1533529651b2696c6@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1429869513-2906-2-git-send-email-guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:58:33 +0800 Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Since the change to the cpu <--> mapping (map the cpu to the physical
> node for all possible at the boot), the node of cpu may be not present,
> so we use the best near online node if the node is not present in the low
> level allocation APIs.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -298,9 +298,31 @@ __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  	return __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL);
>  }
>  
> +static int find_near_online_node(int node)
> +{
> +	int n, val;
> +	int min_val = INT_MAX;
> +	int best_node = -1;
> +
> +	for_each_online_node(n) {
> +		val = node_distance(node, n);
> +
> +		if (val < min_val) {
> +			min_val = val;
> +			best_node = n;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return best_node;
> +}

This should be `inline' if it's in a header file.

But it is far too large to be inlined anyway - please move it to a .c file.

And please document it.  A critical thing to describe is how we
determine whether a node is "near".  There are presumably multiple ways
in which we could decide that a node is "near" (number of hops, minimum
latency, ...).  Which one did you choose, and why?

>  static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  						unsigned int order)
>  {
> +	/* Offline node, use the best near online node */
> +	if (!node_online(nid))
> +		nid = find_near_online_node(nid);
> +
>  	/* Unknown node is current node */
>  	if (nid < 0)
>  		nid = numa_node_id();
> @@ -311,7 +333,11 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  static inline struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>  						unsigned int order)
>  {
> -	VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid));
> +	/* Offline node, use the best near online node */
> +	if (!node_online(nid))
> +		nid = find_near_online_node(nid);
> +
> +	VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
>  
>  	return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
>  }

Ouch.  These functions are called very frequently, and adding overhead
to them is a big deal.  And the patch even adds overhead to non-x86
architectures which don't benefit from it!

Is there no way this problem can be fixed somewhere else?  Preferably
by fixing things up at hotplug time.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-24 20:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-24  9:58 [RESEND RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/cpu hotplug: make apicid <--> cpuid mapping persistent Gu Zheng
2015-04-24  9:58 ` [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/2] gfp: use the best near online node if the target node is offline Gu Zheng
2015-04-24 20:01   ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2015-04-27  9:44     ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-04-27 10:26       ` Gu Zheng
2015-04-27 10:19     ` Gu Zheng
2015-04-24 14:45 ` [RESEND RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/cpu hotplug: make apicid <--> cpuid mapping persistent Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-25 10:14   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-04-27 10:28     ` Gu Zheng

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=20150424130153.f7b494f1533529651b2696c6@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®