2020-02-18 22:44:53

by Wei Yang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [Patch v4] mm/vmscan.c: remove cpu online notification for now

kswapd kernel thread starts either with a CPU affinity set to the full
cpu mask of its target node or without any affinity at all if the node
is CPUless. There is a cpu hotplug callback (kswapd_cpu_online) that
implements an elaborate way to update this mask when a cpu is onlined.

It is not really clear whether there is any actual benefit from this
scheme. Completely CPU-less NUMA nodes rarely gain a new CPU during
runtime. Drop the code for that reason. If there is a real usecase then
we can resurrect and simplify the code.

[[email protected] rewrite changelog]

Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>

---
v4:
* adjust changelog suggested by Michal
v3:
* remove the cpu online notification suggested by Michal
v2:
* rephrase the changelog
---
mm/vmscan.c | 27 +--------------------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 665f33258cd7..a4fdf3dc8887 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -4023,27 +4023,6 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_to_reclaim)
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HIBERNATION */

-/* It's optimal to keep kswapds on the same CPUs as their memory, but
- not required for correctness. So if the last cpu in a node goes
- away, we get changed to run anywhere: as the first one comes back,
- restore their cpu bindings. */
-static int kswapd_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
-{
- int nid;
-
- for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
- pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
- const struct cpumask *mask;
-
- mask = cpumask_of_node(pgdat->node_id);
-
- if (cpumask_any_and(cpu_online_mask, mask) < nr_cpu_ids)
- /* One of our CPUs online: restore mask */
- set_cpus_allowed_ptr(pgdat->kswapd, mask);
- }
- return 0;
-}
-
/*
* This kswapd start function will be called by init and node-hot-add.
* On node-hot-add, kswapd will moved to proper cpus if cpus are hot-added.
@@ -4083,15 +4062,11 @@ void kswapd_stop(int nid)

static int __init kswapd_init(void)
{
- int nid, ret;
+ int nid;

swap_setup();
for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY)
kswapd_run(nid);
- ret = cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
- "mm/vmscan:online", kswapd_cpu_online,
- NULL);
- WARN_ON(ret < 0);
return 0;
}

--
2.17.1


2020-02-19 20:08:46

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] mm/vmscan.c: remove cpu online notification for now

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:22 +0800 Wei Yang <[email protected]> wrote:

> kswapd kernel thread starts either with a CPU affinity set to the full
> cpu mask of its target node or without any affinity at all if the node
> is CPUless. There is a cpu hotplug callback (kswapd_cpu_online) that
> implements an elaborate way to update this mask when a cpu is onlined.
>
> It is not really clear whether there is any actual benefit from this
> scheme. Completely CPU-less NUMA nodes rarely gain a new CPU during
> runtime.

This is the case across all platforms, all architectures, all users for
the next N years? I'm surprised that we know this with sufficient
confidence. Can you explain how you came to make this assertion?

> Drop the code for that reason. If there is a real usecase then
> we can resurrect and simplify the code.

2020-02-20 07:53:04

by Michal Hocko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] mm/vmscan.c: remove cpu online notification for now

On Wed 19-02-20 12:08:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:22 +0800 Wei Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > kswapd kernel thread starts either with a CPU affinity set to the full
> > cpu mask of its target node or without any affinity at all if the node
> > is CPUless. There is a cpu hotplug callback (kswapd_cpu_online) that
> > implements an elaborate way to update this mask when a cpu is onlined.
> >
> > It is not really clear whether there is any actual benefit from this
> > scheme. Completely CPU-less NUMA nodes rarely gain a new CPU during
> > runtime.
>
> This is the case across all platforms, all architectures, all users for
> the next N years? I'm surprised that we know this with sufficient
> confidence. Can you explain how you came to make this assertion?

CPUless NUMA nodes are quite rare - mostly ppc with crippled LPARs.
I am not aware those would dynamically get CPUs for those nodes later in
the runtime. Maybe they do but we would like to learn about that. A
missing cpu mask is not going cause any fatal problems anyway.

As the changelog states the callback can be reintroduced with a sign of
testing and usecase description. I prefer we drop this code in the mean
time as the benefit is not really clear or testable.

> > Drop the code for that reason. If there is a real usecase then
> > we can resurrect and simplify the code.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

2020-02-20 17:04:27

by Yang Shi

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] mm/vmscan.c: remove cpu online notification for now

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52 PM Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed 19-02-20 12:08:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:44:22 +0800 Wei Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > kswapd kernel thread starts either with a CPU affinity set to the full
> > > cpu mask of its target node or without any affinity at all if the node
> > > is CPUless. There is a cpu hotplug callback (kswapd_cpu_online) that
> > > implements an elaborate way to update this mask when a cpu is onlined.
> > >
> > > It is not really clear whether there is any actual benefit from this
> > > scheme. Completely CPU-less NUMA nodes rarely gain a new CPU during
> > > runtime.
> >
> > This is the case across all platforms, all architectures, all users for
> > the next N years? I'm surprised that we know this with sufficient
> > confidence. Can you explain how you came to make this assertion?
>
> CPUless NUMA nodes are quite rare - mostly ppc with crippled LPARs.
> I am not aware those would dynamically get CPUs for those nodes later in
> the runtime. Maybe they do but we would like to learn about that. A
> missing cpu mask is not going cause any fatal problems anyway.

Persistent memory nodes are CPUless nodes. But, I don't think they
would get any CPU online later in the runtime.

>
> As the changelog states the callback can be reintroduced with a sign of
> testing and usecase description. I prefer we drop this code in the mean
> time as the benefit is not really clear or testable.
>
> > > Drop the code for that reason. If there is a real usecase then
> > > we can resurrect and simplify the code.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>