On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/05/2015 06:59 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 10/02/2015 12:18 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
When openvswitch tries allocate memory from offline numa node 0:
stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
0)
It catches VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(nid))
[ replaced with VM_WARN_ON(!node_online(nid)) recently ] in linux/gfp.h
This patch disables numa affinity in this case.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
index f2ea83ba4763..c7f74aab34b9 100644
--- a/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
+++ b/net/openvswitch/flow_table.c
@@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ struct sw_flow *ovs_flow_alloc(void)
/* Initialize the default stat node. */
stats = kmem_cache_alloc_node(flow_stats_cache,
- GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, 0);
+ GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
+ node_online(0) ? 0 : NUMA_NO_NODE);
Stupid question: can node 0 become offline between this check, and the
VM_WARN_ON? :) BTW what kind of system has node 0 offline?
Another question to ask would be is it possible for node 0 to be online, but
be a memoryless node?
I would say you are better off just making this call kmem_cache_alloc. I
don't see anything that indicates the memory has to come from node 0, so
adding the extra overhead doesn't provide any value.
I agree that this at least makes me wonder, though I actually have
concerns in the opposite direction - I see assumptions about this
being on node 0 in net/openvswitch/flow.c.
Jarno, since you original wrote this code, can you take a look to see
if everything still makes sense?
We keep the pre-allocated stats node at array index 0, which is initially
used by all CPUs, but if CPUs from multiple numa nodes start updating the
stats, we allocate additional stats nodes (up to one per numa node), and the
CPUs on node 0 keep using the preallocated entry. If stats cannot be
allocated from CPUs local node, then those CPUs keep using the entry at
index 0. Currently the code in net/openvswitch/flow.c will try to allocate
the local memory repeatedly, which may not be optimal when there is no
memory at the local node.
Allocating the memory for the index 0 from other than node 0, as discussed
here, just means that the CPUs on node 0 will keep on using non-local memory
for stats. In a scenario where there are CPUs on two nodes (0, 1), but only
the node 1 has memory, a shared flow entry will still end up having separate
memory allocated for both nodes, but both of the nodes would be at node 1.
However, there is still a high likelihood that the memory allocations would
not share a cache line, which should prevent the nodes from invalidating
each other’s caches. Based on this I do not see a problem relaxing the
memory allocation for the default stats node. If node 0 has memory, however,
it would be better to allocate the memory from node 0.
Thanks for going through all of that.
It seems like the question that is being raised is whether it actually
makes sense to try to get the initial memory on node 0, especially
since it seems to introduce some corner cases? Is there any reason why
the flow is more likely to hit node 0 than a randomly chosen one?
(Assuming that this is a multinode system, otherwise it's kind of a
moot point.) We could have a separate pointer to the default allocated
memory, so it wouldn't conflict with memory that was intentionally
allocated for node 0.
It would still be preferable to know from which node the default stats node
was allocated, and store it in the appropriate pointer in the array. We
could then add a new “default stats node index” that would be used to locate
the node in the array of pointers we already have. That way we would avoid
extra allocation and processing of the default stats node.
I agree, that sounds reasonable to me. Will you make that change?Besides eliminating corner cases, it might help performance in somecases too by avoiding stressing memory bandwidth on node 0.
I’ll do this,
Jarno |