Thread (4 messages) 4 messages, 3 authors, 2012-05-25

Re: [PATCH] tmpfs not interleaving properly

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2012-05-23 22:20:15
Also in: lkml, stable

On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:28:21 +0000
Nathan Zimmer [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
When tmpfs has the memory policy interleaved it always starts allocating at each file at node 0.
When there are many small files the lower nodes fill up disproportionately.
My proposed solution is to start a file at a randomly chosen node.

...
--- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct shmem_inode_info {
 		char		*symlink;	/* unswappable short symlink */
 	};
 	struct shared_policy	policy;		/* NUMA memory alloc policy */
+	int			node_offset;	/* bias for interleaved nodes */
 	struct list_head	swaplist;	/* chain of maybes on swap */
 	struct list_head	xattr_list;	/* list of shmem_xattr */
 	struct inode		vfs_inode;
diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index f99ff3e..58ef512 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
 
 	/* Create a pseudo vma that just contains the policy */
 	pvma.vm_start = 0;
-	pvma.vm_pgoff = index;
+	pvma.vm_pgoff = index + info->node_offset;
 	pvma.vm_ops = NULL;
 	pvma.vm_policy = mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&info->policy, index);
 
@@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct inode *shmem_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, const struct inode
 			inode->i_fop = &shmem_file_operations;
 			mpol_shared_policy_init(&info->policy,
 						 shmem_get_sbmpol(sbinfo));
+			info->node_offset = node_random(&node_online_map);
 			break;
 		case S_IFDIR:
 			inc_nlink(inode);
The patch seems a bit arbitrary and hacky.  It would have helped if you
had fully described how it works, and why this implementation was
chosen.

- Why alter (actually, lie about!) the offset-into-file?  Could we
  have similarly perturbed the address arg to alloc_page_vma() to do
  the spreading?

- The patch is dependent upon MPOL_INTERLEAVE being in effect, isn't
  it?  How do we guarantee that it is in force here?

- We look up the policy via mpol_shared_policy_lookup() using the
  unperturbed index.  Why?  Should we be using index+info->node_offset
  there?


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help