| Message ID | 20220416053902.68517-3-dave@stgolabs.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: proactive reclaim and memory tiering topics | expand |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:38:58PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > We have helpers for a reason. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations > * as wide as possible. > */ > - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; > > if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags)) > -- > 2.26.2 > Looks good. Reviewed by: Adam Manzanares <a.manzanares@samsung.com>
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > We have helpers for a reason. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:38:58PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > We have helpers for a reason. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations > * as wide as possible. > */ > - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) Currently node_is_toptier returns all N_CPU node as toptier but N_CPU node will not stay necessarily top tier as per discussions on below thread. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9sVx94ACSuCVN8V0tKp+AMxiY89cro0japtyB=xNfNBw@mail.gmail.com/ node_is_toptier() definition can change based on the discussion in above thread. > return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; > > if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags)) > -- > 2.26.2 > >
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes: > We have helpers for a reason. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations > * as wide as possible. > */ > - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; > > if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags)) Are we really looking at the top tier in a tiered memory hierarchy here? The comment seems to suggest we are looking at local NUMA node? -aneesh
On Tue, 2022-05-31 at 17:20 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes: > > > We have helpers for a reason. > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) > > * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations > > * as wide as possible. > > */ > > - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > > + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) > > return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; > > > > > > if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags)) > > > Are we really looking at the top tier in a tiered memory hierarchy here? > The comment seems to suggest we are looking at local NUMA node? The code change itself is correct. But it is an implementation details that node_is_toptier() == node_state(, N_CPU). And after we supporting more memory tiers (like GPU, HBM), we will change the implementation of node_is_toptier() soon. So I think that it's better to keep the original code. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 1678802e03e7..cb583fcbf5bf 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -4750,7 +4750,7 @@ int node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order) * over remote processors and spread off node memory allocations * as wide as possible. */ - if (node_state(pgdat->node_id, N_CPU) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) + if (node_is_toptier(pgdat->node_id) && pgdat->node_id != numa_node_id()) return NODE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN; if (test_and_set_bit(PGDAT_RECLAIM_LOCKED, &pgdat->flags))
We have helpers for a reason. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> --- mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)