On Tue 04-12-18 13:56:30, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > This is a full revert of ac5b2c18911f ("mm: thp: relax __GFP_THISNODE for
> > > MADV_HUGEPAGE mappings") and a partial revert of 89c83fb539f9 ("mm, thp:
> > > consolidate THP gfp handling into alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask").
> > >
> > > By not setting __GFP_THISNODE, applications can allocate remote hugepages
> > > when the local node is fragmented or low on memory when either the thp
> > > defrag setting is "always" or the vma has been madvised with
> > > MADV_HUGEPAGE.
> > >
> > > Remote access to hugepages often has much higher latency than local pages
> > > of the native page size. On Haswell, ac5b2c18911f was shown to have a
> > > 13.9% access regression after this commit for binaries that remap their
> > > text segment to be backed by transparent hugepages.
> > >
> > > The intent of ac5b2c18911f is to address an issue where a local node is
> > > low on memory or fragmented such that a hugepage cannot be allocated. In
> > > every scenario where this was described as a fix, there is abundant and
> > > unfragmented remote memory available to allocate from, even with a greater
> > > access latency.
> > >
> > > If remote memory is also low or fragmented, not setting __GFP_THISNODE was
> > > also measured on Haswell to have a 40% regression in allocation latency.
> > >
> > > Restore __GFP_THISNODE for thp allocations.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ac5b2c18911f ("mm: thp: relax __GFP_THISNODE for MADV_HUGEPAGE
> > > mappings")
> > > Fixes: 89c83fb539f9 ("mm, thp: consolidate THP gfp handling into
> > > alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask")
> >
> > At minimum do not remove the cleanup part which consolidates the gfp
> > hadnling to a single place. There is no real reason to have the
> > __GFP_THISNODE ugliness outside of alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask.
> >
>
> The __GFP_THISNODE usage is still confined to
> alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask() for the thp fault path, we no longer set
> it in alloc_pages_vma() as done before the cleanup.
Why should be new_page any different?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
