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>