Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221031183122.470962-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <Y2BHcBCR2FIJgU4w@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAAa6QmQt9Us8YpirQGXV0_AetuPS+EOqMSGqNn6KW24HXvwO_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2DQr06mNzk0ITX1@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAHbLzkonsnr4yxUOpMpoch1eCVNgR5hC9YaMkPR=fSV2Uszc6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAa6QmRe1zMp8P-gZjR63Fg6KhOw+fP-v7SQWLNKuc2Y9ZxvyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2IerOXJ+ZoRTHcs@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAHbLzkrBNzsorc9oCq1=ri0uq1xbQ+m+u2gQX5GYrb=Z7n4siA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2KXkVmRWOpPT/MI@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAHbLzkosQf8OoL+u+gkfO5-fvCNUuDxEa08FUfks1M4AS7tmjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y2KtKVpR69P+E0xT@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Y2KtKVpR69P+E0xT@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 11:18:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkpirnzJSu0SHGRbhFMsH7ZzHtL5ZMXjrBoy8r=UywVhMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 02-11-22 10:36:07, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:15 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 02-11-22 09:03:57, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:39 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue 01-11-22 12:13:35, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > This is slightly tangential - but I don't want to send a new mail
> > > > > > about it -- but I wonder if we should be doing __GFP_THISNODE +
> > > > > > explicit node vs having hpage_collapse_find_target_node() set a
> > > > > > nodemask. We could then provide fallback nodes for ties, or if some
> > > > > > node contained > some threshold number of pages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would simply go with something like this (not even compile tested):
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Michal. It is definitely an option. As I talked with Zach, I'm
> > > > not sure whether it is worth making the code more complicated for such
> > > > micro optimization or not. Removing __GFP_THISNODE or even removing
> > > > the node balance code should be fine too IMHO. TBH I doubt there would
> > > > be any noticeable difference.
> > >
> > > I do agree that an explicit nodes (quasi)round robin sounds over
> > > engineered. It makes some sense to try to target the prevalent node
> > > though because this code can be executed from khugepaged and therefore
> > > allocating with a completely different affinity than the original fault.
> >
> > Yeah, the corner case comes from the node balance code, it just tries
> > to balance between multiple prevalent nodes, so you agree to remove it
> > IIRC?
>
> Yeah, let's just collect all good nodes into a nodemask and keep
> __GFP_THISNODE in place. You can consider having the nodemask per collapse_control
> so that you allocate it only once in the struct lifetime.

Actually my intention is more aggressive, just remove that node balance code.

>
> And as mentioned in other reply it would be really nice to hide this
> under CONFIG_NUMA (in a standalong follow up of course).

The hpage_collapse_find_target_node() function itself is defined under
CONFIG_NUMA.

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs