Re: [PATCH 6/6] Use one zonelist that is filtered by nodemask

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 09.10.2007 [16:40:53 +0100], Mel Gorman wrote:
> First, sorry for being so slow to respond. I was getting ill towards the end
> of last week and am worse now. Brain is in total mush as a result. Thanks
> Lee for finding this problem and thanks to Nish for investigating it properly.
> 
> Comments and candidate fix to one zonelist are below.
> 
> On (08/10/07 18:11), Nishanth Aravamudan didst pronounce:
> > On 28.09.2007 [15:25:27 +0100], Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > 
> > > Two zonelists exist so that GFP_THISNODE allocations will be guaranteed
> > > to use memory only from a node local to the CPU. As we can now filter the
> > > zonelist based on a nodemask, we filter the standard node zonelist for zones
> > > on the local node when GFP_THISNODE is specified.
> > > 
> > > When GFP_THISNODE is used, a temporary nodemask is created with only the
> > > node local to the CPU set. This allows us to eliminate the second zonelist.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > diff -rup -X /usr/src/patchset-0.6/bin//dontdiff linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2-030_filter_nodemask/include/linux/gfp.h linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2-040_use_one_zonelist/include/linux/gfp.h
> > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2-030_filter_nodemask/include/linux/gfp.h	2007-09-28 15:49:57.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2-040_use_one_zonelist/include/linux/gfp.h	2007-09-28 15:55:03.000000000 +0100
> > 
> > [Reordering the chunks to make my comments a little more logical]
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > -static inline struct zonelist *node_zonelist(int nid, gfp_t flags)
> > > +static inline struct zonelist *node_zonelist(int nid)
> > >  {
> > > -	return NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelists + gfp_zonelist(flags);
> > > +	return &NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelist;
> > >  }
> > > 
> > >  #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_FREE_PAGE
> > > @@ -198,7 +186,7 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_n
> > >  	if (nid < 0)
> > >  		nid = numa_node_id();
> > > 
> > > -	return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
> > > +	return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid));
> > >  }
> > 
> > This is alloc_pages_node(), and converting the nid to a zonelist means
> > that lower levels (specifically __alloc_pages() here) are not aware of
> > nids, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Yep, this is correct.
> 
> > This isn't a change, I just want to make
> > sure I understand...
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > >  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;
> > > +
> > > +		return __alloc_pages_internal(gfp_mask, order,
> > > +				zonelist, nodemask_thisnode(&nodemask));
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >  	return __alloc_pages_internal(gfp_mask, order, zonelist, NULL);
> > >  }
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > So alloc_pages_node() calls here and for THISNODE allocations, we go ask
> > nodemask_thisnode() for a nodemask...
> > 
> 
> Also correct.
> 
> > > +static nodemask_t *nodemask_thisnode(nodemask_t *nodemask)
> > > +{
> > > +	/* Build a nodemask for just this node */
> > > +	int nid = numa_node_id();
> > > +
> > > +	nodes_clear(*nodemask);
> > > +	node_set(nid, *nodemask);
> > > +
> > > +	return nodemask;
> > > +}
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > And nodemask_thisnode() always gives us a nodemask with only the node
> > the current process is running on set, I think?
> > 
> 
> Yes, I interpreted THISNODE to mean "this node I am running on". Callers
> seemed to expect this but the memoryless needs it to be "this node I am
> running on unless I specify a node in which case I mean that node.".
> 
> > That seems really wrong -- and would explain what Lee was seeing while
> > using my patches for the hugetlb pool allocator to use THISNODE
> > allocations. All the allocations would end up coming from whatever node
> > the process happened to be running on. This obviously messes up hugetlb
> > accounting, as I rely on THISNODE requests returning NULL if they go
> > off-node.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how this would be fixed, as __alloc_pages() no longer has
> > the nid to set in the mask.
> > 
> > Am I wrong in my analysis?
> > 
> 
> No, you seem to be right on the ball. Can you review the following patch
> please and determine if it fixes the problem in a satisfactory manner? I
> think it does and your tests seemed to give proper values with this patch
> applied but brain no worky work and a second opinion is needed.
> 
> ====
> Subject: Use specified node ID with GFP_THISNODE if available
> 
> It had been assumed that __GFP_THISNODE meant allocating from the local
> node and only the local node. However, users of alloc_pages_node() may also
> specify GFP_THISNODE. In this case, only the specified node should be used.
> This patch will allocate pages only from the requested node when GFP_THISNODE
> is used with alloc_pages_node().
> 
> [nacc@us.ibm.com: Detailed analysis of problem]
> Found-by: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>

Mel, seems to fix the problem here. Nice job. Feel free to add:

Tested-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/