On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 3:18 AM Huang Shijie
<shijie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The current code passes NUMA_NO_NODE to __alloc_skb(), we foundThis is intended (WAI)
it may creates fclone SKB in remote NUMA node.
What about the NUMA policies of the current thread ?
I guess not.
Has NUMA_NO_NODE behavior changed recently?
What means : "it may creates" ? Please be more specific.
So use numa_node_id() to limit the allocation to current NUMA node.We prefer the allocation to succeed, instead of failing if the current
NUMA node has no available memory.
Please check:
grep . /sys/devices/system/node/node*/numastat
Are you going to change ~700 uses of NUMA_NO_NODE in the kernel ?
Just curious.
Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <shijie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/skbuff.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
index 2dde34c29203..ebc42b2604ad 100644
--- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
+++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
@@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ static inline bool skb_fclone_busy(const struct sock *sk,
static inline struct sk_buff *alloc_skb_fclone(unsigned int size,
gfp_t priority)
{
- return __alloc_skb(size, priority, SKB_ALLOC_FCLONE, NUMA_NO_NODE);
+ return __alloc_skb(size, priority, SKB_ALLOC_FCLONE, numa_node_id());
}
struct sk_buff *skb_morph(struct sk_buff *dst, struct sk_buff *src);
--
2.40.1