On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 08:45 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 09.11.2007 [16:14:55 +0000], Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On (09/11/07 07:45), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > > struct page * fastcall
> > > > __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > > > struct zonelist *zonelist)
> > > > {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Use a temporary nodemask for __GFP_THISNODE allocations. If the
> > > > + * cost of allocating on the stack or the stack usage becomes
> > > > + * noticable, allocate the nodemasks per node at boot or compile time
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (unlikely(gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)) {
> > > > + nodemask_t nodemask;
> > >
> > > Hmmm.. This places a potentially big structure on the stack. nodemask can
> > > contain up to 1024 bits which means 128 bytes. Maybe keep an array of
> > > gfp_thisnode nodemasks (node_nodemask?) and use node_nodemask[nid]?
> > >
> >
> > That is what I was hinting at in the comment as a possible solution.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > + return __alloc_pages_internal(gfp_mask, order,
> > > > + zonelist, nodemask_thisnode(numa_node_id(), &nodemask));
> > >
> > > Argh.... GFP_THISNODE must use the nid passed to alloc_pages_node
> > > and *not* the local numa node id. Only if the node specified to
> > > alloc_pages nodes is -1 will this work.
> > >
> >
> > alloc_pages_node() calls __alloc_pages_nodemask() though where in this
> > function if I'm reading it right is called without a node id. Given no
> > other details on the nid, the current one seemed a logical choice.
>
> Yeah, I guess the context here matters (and is a little hard to follow
> because thare are a few places that change in different ways here):
>
> For allocating pages from a particular node (GFP_THISNODE with nid),
> the nid clearly must be specified. This only happens with
> alloc_pages_node(), AFAICT. So, in that interface, the right thing is
> done and the appropriate nodemask will be built.
I agree. In an earlier patch, Mel was ignoring nid and using
numa_node_id() here. This was causing your [Nish's] hugetlb pool
allocation patches to fail. Mel fixed that ~9oct07.
>
> On the other hand, if we call alloc_pages() with GFP_THISNODE set, there
> is no nid to base the allocation on, so we "fallback" to numa_node_id()
> [ almost like the nid had been specified as -1 ].
>
> So I guess this is logical -- but I wonder, do we have any callers of
> alloc_pages(GFP_THISNODE) ? It seems like an odd thing to do, when
> alloc_pages_node() exists?
I don't know if we have any current callers that do this, but absent any
documentation specifying otherwise, Mel's implementation matches what
I'd expect the behavior to be if I DID call alloc_pages with 'THISNODE.
However, we could specify that THISNODE is ignored in __alloc_pages()
and recommend the use of alloc_pages_node() passing numa_node_id() as
the nid parameter to achieve the behavior. This would eliminate the
check for 'THISNODE in __alloc_pages(). Just mask it off before calling
down to __alloc_pages_internal().
Does this make sense?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
