Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 6 authors, 2021-10-18

Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: fix numa spreading for large hash tables

From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-10-14 10:02:05
Also in: lkml

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 08:10:40PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Eric Dumazet reported a strange numa spreading info in [1], and found
commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings") introduced
this issue [2].

Dig into the difference before and after this patch, page allocation has
some difference:

before:
alloc_large_system_hash
    __vmalloc
        __vmalloc_node(..., NUMA_NO_NODE, ...)
            __vmalloc_node_range
                __vmalloc_area_node
                    alloc_page /* because NUMA_NO_NODE, so choose alloc_page branch */
                        alloc_pages_current
                            alloc_page_interleave /* can be proved by print policy mode */

after:
alloc_large_system_hash
    __vmalloc
        __vmalloc_node(..., NUMA_NO_NODE, ...)
            __vmalloc_node_range
                __vmalloc_area_node
                    alloc_pages_node /* choose nid by nuam_mem_id() */
                        __alloc_pages_node(nid, ....)

So after commit 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings"),
it will allocate memory in current node instead of interleaving allocate
memory.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CANn89iL6AAyWhfxdHO+jaT075iOa3XcYn9k6JJc7JR2XYn6k_Q@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CANn89iLofTR=AK-QOZY87RdUZENCZUT4O6a0hvhu3_EwRMerOg@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

Fixes: 121e6f3258fe ("mm/vmalloc: hugepage vmalloc mappings")
Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Wandun <redacted>
---
 mm/vmalloc.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index f884706c5280..48e717626e94 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -2823,6 +2823,8 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
 		unsigned int order, unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages)
 {
 	unsigned int nr_allocated = 0;
+	struct page *page;
+	int i;
 
 	/*
 	 * For order-0 pages we make use of bulk allocator, if
@@ -2833,6 +2835,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
 	if (!order) {
 		while (nr_allocated < nr_pages) {
 			unsigned int nr, nr_pages_request;
+			page = NULL;
 
 			/*
 			 * A maximum allowed request is hard-coded and is 100
@@ -2842,9 +2845,23 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid,
 			 */
 			nr_pages_request = min(100U, nr_pages - nr_allocated);
 
-			nr = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node(gfp, nid,
-				nr_pages_request, pages + nr_allocated);
-
+			if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
<snip>
void *vmalloc(unsigned long size)
{
	return __vmalloc_node(size, 1, GFP_KERNEL, NUMA_NO_NODE,
		__builtin_return_address(0));
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(vmalloc);
<snip>

vmalloc() uses NUMA_NO_NODE, so all vmalloc calls will be reverted to a single
page allocator for NUMA and non-NUMA systems. Is it intentional to bypass the
optimized bulk allocator for non-NUMA systems? 

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help