[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH V5] mm readahead: Fix readahead fail for no local memory and limit readahead pages
On 13.02.2014 [14:41:04 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
> > the improvement.
> >
> > Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
> > memoryless node.
> > May be per cpu _numa_mem_ values are not set properly. Need to dig out ....
> >
> I believe ppc will be relying on __build_all_zonelists() to set
> numa_mem_id() to be the proper node, and that relies on the ordering of
> the zonelist built for the memoryless node. It would be very strange if
> local_memory_node() is returning a memoryless node because it is the first
> zone for node_zonelist(GFP_KERNEL) (why would a memoryless node be on the
> zonelist at all?).
> I think the real problem is that build_all_zonelists() is only called at
> init when the boot cpu is online so it's only setting numa_mem_id()
> properly for the boot cpu. Does it return a node with memory if you
> toggle /proc/sys/vm/numa_zonelist_order? Do
> echo node > /proc/sys/vm/numa_zonelist_order
> echo zone > /proc/sys/vm/numa_zonelist_order
> echo default > /proc/sys/vm/numa_zonelist_order
> and check if it returns the proper value at either point. This will force
> build_all_zonelists() and numa_mem_id() to point to the proper node since
> all cpus are now online.
> So the prerequisite for CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is that there is an
> arch-specific set_numa_mem() that makes this mapping correct like ia64
> does. If that's the case, then it's (1) completely undocumented and (2)
> Nishanth's patch is incomplete because anything that adds
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES needs to do the proper set_numa_mem() for it
> to be any different than numa_node_id().

I'm working on this latter bit now. I tried to mirror ia64, but it looks
like they have CONFIG_USER_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID, which powerpc doesn't.
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES should be tied together in Kconfig?

I'll keep working, but would appreciate any further insight.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-14 02:01    [W:0.141 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site