Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86, gfp: Cache best near node for memory allocation.

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Thu Sep 10 2015 - 15:38:31 EST


(cc'ing Christoph Lameter)

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:29:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:45PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > index ad35f30..1a1324f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -307,13 +307,19 @@ static inline struct page *alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > if (nid < 0)
> > nid = numa_node_id();
> >
> > + if (!node_online(nid))
> > + nid = get_near_online_node(nid);
> > +
> > return __alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order, node_zonelist(nid, gfp_mask));
> > }
>
> Why not just update node_data[]->node_zonelist in the first place?
> Also, what's the synchronization rule here? How are allocators
> synchronized against node hot [un]plugs?

Also, shouldn't kmalloc_node() or any public allocator fall back
automatically to a near node w/o GFP_THISNODE? Why is this failing at
all? I get that cpu id -> node id mapping changing messes up the
locality but allocations shouldn't fail, right?

Thanks.

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