On 28.01.2014 [10:29:47 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.01.2014 [14:58:05 +0900], Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 05:10:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 24.01.2014 [16:25:58 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you for clarifying and providing a test patch. I ran with this on
> > > > > the system showing the original problem, configured to have 15GB of
> > > > > memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > With your patch after boot:
> > > > >
> > > > > MemTotal: 15604736 kB
> > > > > MemFree: 8768192 kB
> > > > > Slab: 3882560 kB
> > > > > SReclaimable: 105408 kB
> > > > > SUnreclaim: 3777152 kB
> > > > >
> > > > > With Anton's patch after boot:
> > > > >
> > > > > MemTotal: 15604736 kB
> > > > > MemFree: 11195008 kB
> > > > > Slab: 1427968 kB
> > > > > SReclaimable: 109184 kB
> > > > > SUnreclaim: 1318784 kB
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that's fairly unscientific, but the numbers are reproducible.
> > > > >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that there is one mistake on David's patch although I'm not sure
> > that it is the reason for this result.
> >
> > With David's patch, get_partial() in new_slab_objects() doesn't work
> > properly, because we only change node id in !node_match() case. If we
> > meet just !freelist case, we pass node id directly to
> > new_slab_objects(), so we always try to allocate new slab page
> > regardless existence of partial pages. We should solve it.
> >
> > Could you try this one?
>
> This helps about the same as David's patch -- but I found the reason
> why! ppc64 doesn't set CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES :) Expect a patch
> shortly for that and one other case I found.
>
> This patch on its own seems to help on our test system by saving around
> 1.5GB of slab.
>
> Tested-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> with the caveat below.
>
> Thanks,
> Nish
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1698,8 +1698,10 @@ static void *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node,
> > struct kmem_cache_cpu *c)
> > {
> > void *object;
> > - int searchnode = (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_node_id() : node;
> > + int searchnode = (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_mem_id() : node;
> >
> > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_present_pages(node))
> > + searchnode = numa_mem_id();
>
> This might be clearer as:
>
> int searchnode = node;
> if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || !node_present_pages(node))
> searchnode = numa_mem_id();
Cody Schafer mentioned to me on IRC that this may not always reflect
exactly what the caller intends.
int searchnode = node;
if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
searchnode = numa_mem_id();
if (!node_present_pages(node))
searchnode = local_memory_node(node);
The difference in semantics from the previous is that here, if we have a
memoryless node, rather than using the CPU's nearest NUMA node, we use
the NUMA node closest to the requested one?
> > object = get_partial_node(s, get_node(s, searchnode), c, flags);
> > if (object || node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > return object;
> > @@ -2278,10 +2280,14 @@ redo:
> >
> > if (unlikely(!node_match(page, node))) {
> > stat(s, ALLOC_NODE_MISMATCH);
> > - deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist);
> > - c->page = NULL;
> > - c->freelist = NULL;
> > - goto new_slab;
> > + if (unlikely(!node_present_pages(node)))
> > + node = numa_mem_id();
Similarly here?
-Nish
> > + if (!node_match(page, node)) {
> > + deactivate_slab(s, page, c->freelist);
> > + c->page = NULL;
> > + c->freelist = NULL;
> > + goto new_slab;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /*
> >
--
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>