From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gentwo.org (gentwo.org [62.72.0.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93EB513119B for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 19:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.72.0.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712258329; cv=none; b=U0NZEn6DC54ETWsLyTFRsbVn90+v5Gl0gjbPeMKuQ8GaHkoGlELfgjuOifISQaVEGWPEPTdHQOoxkBDE6oF0k83yAXIJZrKqlIaY1ujLX+yh3DqsnSvXcRHW/xwy37CJPv/WDd/Zcrrdc3PYVeVidzOUirYjLRqGO6PSVtkHycU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712258329; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DRsq6B7gNf90bJWvlcjXsjCsytFzxuTCVa12StodvOA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EDt/iFOdYacOLAa4nmomZBQHyzj7/d+dQc38n8fUmfeDYL/21/F+RuoScNt7NI7FrzlWVygB2eVsGZRcQIf+Co0ZZW/tIW9/9ergxb43E52qXonKKZcO9RevX8nm08gwvQ+70Jp628sPBri0AX4fy6ZylBFb18+FWbUH18c78CM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=linux.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.72.0.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=linux.com Received: by gentwo.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 172CA40A89; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gentwo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1506940A86; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:12:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" To: Ming Yang cc: penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhangliang5@huawei.com, wangzhigang17@huawei.com, liushixin2@huawei.com, alex.chen@huawei.com, pengyi.pengyi@huawei.com, xiqi2@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix slub segmentation In-Reply-To: <20240402031025.1097-1-yangming73@huawei.com> Message-ID: <56193a2c-dadb-108d-4eaf-0a923fc4912b@linux.com> References: <20240402031025.1097-1-yangming73@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Tue, 2 Apr 2024, Ming Yang wrote: > The key point of above allocation flow is: the slab should be alloced > from the partial of other node first, instead of the buddy system of > other node directly. If you use GFP_THISNODE then you will trigger a reclaim pass on the remote node. That could generate a performance regression. We already support this kind of behavior via the node_reclaim / zone_reclaiom setting in procfs. Please use that. The remote buildup of the partial pages can be addressed by changing the remote_node_defrag_ratio in the slabs. This will make slub scan remote nodes for partial slabs before going into the page allocator.