On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:28:12AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 06.02.2014 [10:59:55 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 06.02.2014 [17:04:18 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 06:07:57PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800],
On 06.02.2014 [10:59:55 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 06.02.2014 [17:04:18 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 06:07:57PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Right so if we are ignoring the node then the simplest thing to do is to
> > not deactivate the current cpu slab but to take an object from it.
>
> Ok, that's what Anton's patch does, I believe. Are you ok with that
> patch as it is?
No. Again hi
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 06:07:57PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test patch. I ran with this on
> > > the system showing the original
On 05.02.2014 [13:28:03 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > If the target node allocation fails (for whatever reason) then I would
> > > recommend for simplicities sake to change the target node to
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE and just take whatever is i
On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test patch. I ran with this on
> > the system showing the original problem, configured to have 15GB of
> > memory.
> >
> > With your patch after
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > If the target node allocation fails (for whatever reason) then I would
> > recommend for simplicities sake to change the target node to
> > NUMA_NO_NODE and just take whatever is in the current cpu slab. A more
> > complex solution would be to loo
On 04.02.2014 [14:39:32 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Yes, sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant Joonsoo's latest patch for
> > the $SUBJECT issue.
>
> Hmmm... I am not sure that this is a general solution. The fallback to
> other nodes ca
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Yes, sorry for my lack of clarity. I meant Joonsoo's latest patch for
> the $SUBJECT issue.
Hmmm... I am not sure that this is a general solution. The fallback to
other nodes can not only occur because a node has no memory as his patch
assumes.
If
On 03.02.2014 [21:38:36 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > So what's the status of this patch? Christoph, do you think this is fine
> > as it is?
>
> Certainly enabling CONFIG_MEMORYLESS_NODES is the right thing to do and I
> already acked the
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> So what's the status of this patch? Christoph, do you think this is fine
> as it is?
Certainly enabling CONFIG_MEMORYLESS_NODES is the right thing to do and I
already acked the patch.
___
Linuxppc-dev ma
On 28.01.2014 [10:29:47 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.01.2014 [14:58:05 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> exactly what the caller intends.
>
> int searchnode = node;
> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> searchnode = numa_mem_id();
> if (!node_present_pages(node))
> searchnode = local_memory_node(node);
>
> The difference in semantics from the prev
On 28.01.2014 [10:29:47 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.01.2014 [14:58:05 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> This helps about the same as David's patch -- but I found the reason
> why! ppc64 doesn't set CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES :) Expect a patch
> shortly for that and one other case I found.
Oww...
___
Lin
On 27.01.2014 [14:58:05 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test pat
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> What I find odd is that there are only 2 nodes on this system, node 0
> (empty) and node 1. So won't numa_mem_id() always be 1? And every page
> should be coming from node 1 (thus node_match() should always be true?)
Well yes that occurs if you sp
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> As to cpu_to_node() being passed to kmalloc_node(), I think an
> appropriate fix is to change that to cpu_to_mem()?
Yup.
> > Yeah, the default policy should be to fallback to local memory if the node
> > passed is memoryless.
>
> Thanks!
I would
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
> kmalloc_node(nid) and kmem_cache_alloc_node(nid) should fallback to nodes
> other than nid when memory can't be allocated, these functions only
> indicate a preference.
The nid passed indicated a preference unless __GFP_THIS_NODE is specified.
Then the
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test patch. I ran with this on
> > > the system showing the original
On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test patch. I ran with this on
> > the system showing the original problem, configured to have 15GB of
> > memory.
> >
> > With your patch after
On 24.01.2014 [15:49:33 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > I think the problem is a memoryless node being used for kmalloc_node() so
> > > we need to decide where to enforce node_present_pages(). __slab_alloc()
> > > seems like the best candi
On 24.01.2014 [13:03:13 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > >index 545a170..a1c6040 100644
> > > >--- a/mm/slub.c
> > > >+++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > >@@ -17
On 24.01.2014 [13:03:13 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > > >index 545a170..a1c6040 100644
> > > >--- a/mm/slub.c
> > > >+++ b/mm/slub.c
> > > >@@ -17
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >
> >diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >index 545a170..a1c6040 100644
> >--- a/mm/slub.c
> >+++ b/mm/slub.c
> >@@ -1700,6 +1700,9 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t
> >flags, int node,
> > void *object;
> > int searchnode =
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:09:07AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>Hi Christoph,
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:13:30PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>
>>> >+ enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(flags);
>>> >
>>> >+ if (!node_present_pages(searchnod
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:13:30PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
>> >+ enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(flags);
>> >
>> >+ if (!node_present_pages(searchnode)) {
>> >+ zonelist = node_zonelist(searchnode, flag
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:13:30PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
>> >+ enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(flags);
>> >
>> >+ if (!node_present_pages(searchnode)) {
>> >+ zonelist = node_zonelist(searchnode, flags);
>> >+
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >+ enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(flags);
> >
> >+ if (!node_present_pages(searchnode)) {
> >+ zonelist = node_zonelist(searchnode, flags);
> >+ for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, zonelist, high_zoneidx) {
> >+
Hi Joonsoo,
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[...]
>
>->8
>diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>index c3eb3d3..a1f6dfa 100644
>--- a/mm/slub.c
>+++ b/mm/slub.c
>@@ -1672,7 +1672,19 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t
>f
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:52:31PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >> Index: b/mm/slub.c
> >> ===
> >> --- a
Hi Wanpeng,
> >+if (node_spanned_pages(node)) {
>
> s/node_spanned_pages/node_present_pages
Thanks, I hadn't come across node_present_pages() before.
Anton
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.
Hi David,
> Why not just delete the entire test?
> Presumably some time a little earlier no local memory was available.
> Even if there is some available now, it is very likely that some won't
> be available again in the near future.
I agree, the current behaviour seems strange but it has been a
Hi Andi,
> > Thoughts? It seems like we could hit a similar situation if a
> > machine is balanced but we run out of memory on a single node.
>
> Yes I agree, but your patch doesn't seem to attempt to handle this?
It doesn't. I was hoping someone with more mm knowledge than I could
suggest a li
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
>We noticed a huge amount of slab memory consumed on a large ppc64 box:
>
>Slab:2094336 kB
>
>Almost 2GB. This box is not balanced and some nodes do not have local
>memory, causing slub to be very inefficient in its slab
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>>
>> We noticed a huge amount of slab memory consumed on a large ppc64 box:
>>
>> Slab:2094336 kB
>>
>> Almost 2GB. This box is not balanced and some nodes
> From: Anton Blanchard
> We noticed a huge amount of slab memory consumed on a large ppc64 box:
>
> Slab:2094336 kB
>
> Almost 2GB. This box is not balanced and some nodes do not have local
> memory, causing slub to be very inefficient in its slab usage.
>
> Each time we call kmem_c
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:31:56PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:21:45PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:10:16PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:40PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >> Hi Joonsoo,
>> >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 0
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:21:45PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:10:16PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:40PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> Hi Joonsoo,
> >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:40PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> >Hello,
> >
> >I think that we need more efforts to solve unbalanced node prob
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> We noticed a huge amount of slab memory consumed on a large ppc64 box:
>
> Slab:2094336 kB
>
> Almost 2GB. This box is not balanced and some nodes do not have local
> memory, causing slub to be very inefficient in i
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:10:16PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:40PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> Hi Joonsoo,
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>> >>
>> [...]
>> >Hello,
>>
Hi Joonsoo,
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:41:36PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>>
[...]
>Hello,
>
>I think that we need more efforts to solve unbalanced node problem.
>
>With this patch, even if node of current cpu slab is not favorable t
Anton Blanchard writes:
>
> Thoughts? It seems like we could hit a similar situation if a machine
> is balanced but we run out of memory on a single node.
Yes I agree, but your patch doesn't seem to attempt to handle this?
-Andi
>
> Index: b/mm/slub.c
> ==
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:21:00PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
>We noticed a huge amount of slab memory consumed on a large ppc64 box:
>
>Slab:2094336 kB
>
>Almost 2GB. This box is not balanced and some nodes do not have local
>memory, causing slub to be very inefficient in its slab
45 matches
Mail list logo
