On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * If required width exeeds current VA block, move
>> + * base downwards and then recheck.
>> + */
>> + if (base + end > va->va_end) {
>> + base = pvm_determine_end_from_reverse(&va, align) - end;
>> + term_area = area;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * If this VA does not fit, move base downwards and recheck.
>> */
>> - if (base + start < va->va_start || base + end > va->va_end) {
>> + if (base + start < va->va_start) {
>> va = node_to_va(rb_prev(&va->rb_node));
>> base = pvm_determine_end_from_reverse(&va, align) - end;
>> term_area = area;
>> --
>> 2.21.0
>>
> I guess it is NUMA related issue, i mean when we have several
> areas/sizes/offsets. Is that correct?
I don't think NUMA has anything to do with it. The vmalloc() area
itself doesn't have any NUMA properties I can think of. We don't, for
instance, partition it into per-node areas that I know of.
I did encounter this issue on a system with ~100 logical CPUs, which is
a moderate amount these days.
