Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
>
>>alloc_pages_node() does not guarantee allocation on a specific node, but
>>calling __alloc_pages() with a specific nodelist would.
>
>
> True but you have emergency *_node function that do not take nodelists.
Agreed.
>>>There is no way that you would need this patch.
>>
>>My goal was to not change the behavior of the slab allocator when inserting
>>a mempool-backed allocator "under" it. Without support for at least
>>*requesting* allocations from a specific node when allocating from a
>>mempool, this would change how the slab allocator works. That would be
>>bad. The slab allocator now does not guarantee that, for example, a
>>kmalloc_node() request is satisfied by memory from the requested node, but
>>it does at least TRY. Without adding mempool_alloc_node() then I would
>>never be able to even TRY to satisfy a mempool-backed kmalloc_node()
>>request from the correct node. I believe that would constitute an
>>unacceptable breakage from normal, documented behavior. So, I *do* need
>>this patch.
>
>
> If you get to the emergency lists then you are already in a tight memory
> situation. In that situation it does not make sense to worry about the
> node number the memory is coming from. kmalloc_node is just a kmalloc with
> an indication of a preference of where the memory should be coming from.
> The node locality only influences performance and not correctness.
>
> There is no change to the way the slab allocator works. Just drop the
> *_node variants.
If you look more carefully at how the emergency mempools are used, I think
you'll better understand why I did this:
Look at patch 9/9, specficially the changes to kmem_getpages():
- page = alloc_pages_node(nodeid, flags, cachep->gfporder);
+ /*
+ * If this allocation request isn't backed by a memory pool, or if that
+ * memory pool's gfporder is not the same as the cache's gfporder, fall
+ * back to alloc_pages_node().
+ */
+ if (!pool || cachep->gfporder != (int)pool->pool_data)
+ page = alloc_pages_node(nodeid, flags, cachep->gfporder);
+ else
+ page = mempool_alloc_node(pool, flags, nodeid);
Allocations backed by a mempool must always be allocated via
mempool_alloc() (or mempool_alloc_node() in this case). What that means
is, without a mempool_alloc_node() function, NO mempool backed allocations
will be able to request a specific node, even when the system has PLENTY of
memory! This, IMO, is unacceptable. Adding more NUMA-awareness to the
mempool system allows us to keep the same slab behavior as before, as well
as leaving us free to ignore the node requests when memory is low.
-Matt
-
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]
