lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[PATCH 0/2] thp nodereclaim fixes
Date
Hi,
this has been brought up by Andrea [1] and he proposed two different
fixes for the regression. I have proposed an alternative fix [2]. I have
changed my mind in the end because whatever fix we end up with it should
be backported to the stable trees so going with a minimalistic one is
preferred so I have got back to the Andrea's second proposed solution
[3] in the end. I have just reworded the changelog to reflect other bug
report with the stall information.

My primary concern about [3] was that the __GFP_THISNODE logic should be
placed in alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask which I've done on top of the
fix as a cleanup (patch 2) and it doesn't need to be backported to the
stable tree.

I am still not happy that the David's workload will regress as a result
but we should really focus on the default behavior and come with a more
robust solution for specialized one for those who have more restrictive
NUMA preferences. I am thinking about a new numa policy that would mimic
node reclaim behavior and I am willing to work on that but we really
have to fix the regression first and that is the patch 1.

Thoughts, alternative patches?

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180820032204.9591-1-aarcange@redhat.com
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180830064732.GA2656@dhcp22.suse.cz
[3] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180820032640.9896-2-aarcange@redhat.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-25 14:04    [W:0.215 / U:7.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site