lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/slub: Reduce memory consumption in extreme scenarios
From
On 3/17/23 12:32, chenjun (AM) wrote:
> 在 2023/3/14 22:41, Vlastimil Babka 写道:
>>> pc.flags = gfpflags;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * when (node != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE)
>>> + * 1) try to get a partial slab from target node with __GFP_THISNODE.
>>> + * 2) if 1) failed, try to allocate a new slab from target node with
>>> + * __GFP_THISNODE.
>>> + * 3) if 2) failed, retry 1) and 2) without __GFP_THISNODE constraint.
>>> + */
>>> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !(gfpflags & __GFP_THISNODE) && try_thisnode)
>>> + pc.flags |= __GFP_THISNODE;
>>
>> Hmm I'm thinking we should also perhaps remove direct reclaim possibilities
>> from the attempt 2). In your qemu test it should make no difference, as it
>> fills everything with kernel memory that is not reclaimable. But in practice
>> the target node might be filled with user memory, and I think it's better to
>> quickly allocate on a different node than spend time in direct reclaim. So
>> the following should work I think?
>>
>> pc.flags = GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE
>>
>
> Hmm, Should it be that:
>
> pc.flags |= GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN |__GFP_THISNODE

No, we need to ignore the other reclaim-related flags that the caller
passed, or it wouldn't work as intended.
The danger is that we ignore some flag that would be necessary to pass, but
I don't think there's any?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:05    [W:0.101 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site