Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn if the node is offlined

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 02-11-22 11:58:26, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 11:18 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 02-11-22 10:36:07, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:15 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed 02-11-22 09:03:57, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:39 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> 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.
> >
> 
> The balancing code dates back to 2013 commit 9f1b868a13ac ("mm: thp:
> khugepaged: add policy for finding target node") where it was made to
> satisfy "numactl --interleave=all". I don't know why any real
> workloads would want this -- but there very well could be a valid use
> case. If not, I think it could be removed independent of what we do
> with __GFP_THISNODE and nodemask.

Thanks for the reference. The patch is really dubious. If the primary
usecase is a memory policy then one should be used. We have the vma
handy. Sure per task policy would be a bigger problem but interleaving
is a mere hint rather than something that has hard requirements.

> Balancing aside -- I haven't fully thought through what an ideal (and
> further overengineered) solution would be for numa, but one (perceived
> - not measured) issue that khugepaged might have (MADV_COLLAPSE
> doesn't have the choice) is on systems with many, many nodes with
> source pages sprinkled across all of them. Should we collapse these
> pages into a single THP from the node with the most (but could still
> be a small %) pages? Probably there are better candidates. So, maybe a
> khugepaged-only check for max_value > (HPAGE_PMD_NR >> 1) or something
> makes sense.

Honestly I do not see any problem to be solved here.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs