On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 04:08:08PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:38:29AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:13:52AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 03:25:07PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:10:03PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > zone_local is using node_distance which is a more expensive call than
> > > > > necessary. On x86, it's another function call in the allocator fast path
> > > > > and increases cache footprint. This patch makes the assumption zones on a
> > > > > local node will share the same node ID. The necessary information should
> > > > > already be cache hot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > index 64020eb..fd9677e 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > @@ -1816,7 +1816,7 @@ static void zlc_clear_zones_full(struct zonelist *zonelist)
> > > > >
> > > > > static bool zone_local(struct zone *local_zone, struct zone *zone)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - return node_distance(local_zone->node, zone->node) == LOCAL_DISTANCE;
> > > > > + return zone_to_nid(zone) == numa_node_id();
> > > >
> > > > Why numa_node_id()? We pass in the preferred zone as @local_zone:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Initially because I was thinking "local node" and numa_node_id() is a
> > > per-cpu variable that should be cheap to access and in some cases
> > > cache-hot as the top-level gfp API calls numa_node_id().
> > >
> > > Thinking about it more though it still makes sense because the preferred
> > > zone is not necessarily local. If the allocation request requires ZONE_DMA32
> > > and the local node does not have that zone then preferred zone is on a
> > > remote node.
> >
> > Don't we treat everything in relation to the preferred zone?
>
> Usually yes, but this time we really care about whether the memory is
> local or remote. It makes sense to me as it is and struggle to see an
> advantage of expressing it in terms of the preferred zone. Minimally
> zone_local would need to be renamed if it could return true for a remote
> zone and I see no advantage in doing that.
What the function tests for is whether any given zone is close
enough/local to the given preferred zone such that we can allocate
from it without having to invoke zone_reclaim_mode.
In your example, if the preferred DMA32 zone were to be on a remote
node and eligible for allocation but full, a DMA zone on the same node
should be fine as well and would not impose a higher remote reference
burden on the allocator than allocating from the preferred DMA32 zone.
So it's really not about the locality of the allocating task but about
the locality of the given preferred zone.
In my tree, I replaced the function body with
return local_zone->node == zone->node;
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>