On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-03-21 13:19:47, Feng Tang wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index d66c1c0..00b19f7 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -2205,9 +2205,13 @@ static struct page
On Wed 10-03-21 13:19:47, Feng Tang wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index d66c1c0..00b19f7 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -2205,9 +2205,13 @@ static struct page *alloc_pages_policy(struct
> mempolicy *pol, gfp_t gfp,
>* |
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:48:58AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/3/21 8:31 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >> I haven't got to the whole series yet. The real question is whether the
> >> first attempt to enforce the preferred mask is a general win. I would
> >> argue that it resembles the existing
On 3/3/21 8:31 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
>> I haven't got to the whole series yet. The real question is whether the
>> first attempt to enforce the preferred mask is a general win. I would
>> argue that it resembles the existing single node preferred memory policy
>> because that one doesn't push
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 01:59:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 04-03-21 16:14:14, Feng Tang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:22:50AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > > On 21-03-03
On Thu 04-03-21 16:14:14, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:22:50AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng
On Wed 03-03-21 09:22:50, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:22:50AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at
On 21-03-03 18:14:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM
On Wed 03-03-21 08:31:41, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 03-03-21
On 21-03-03 14:59:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > One thing
On Wed 03-03-21 21:18:32, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100,
On Wed 03-03-21 21:46:44, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
[...]
> > > > One thing I tried which can fix the slowness is:
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:18:32PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > > Hi Michal,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58,
On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > When doing broader test, we noticed allocation
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > When doing broader test, we noticed allocation slowness in one test
> > > case that malloc memory with
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58, Feng Tang wrote:
> > When doing broader test, we noticed allocation slowness in one test
> > case that malloc memory with size which is slightly bigger than free
> > memory of targeted nodes, but
On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58, Feng Tang wrote:
> When doing broader test, we noticed allocation slowness in one test
> case that malloc memory with size which is slightly bigger than free
> memory of targeted nodes, but much less then the total free memory
> of system.
>
> The reason is the code
When doing broader test, we noticed allocation slowness in one test
case that malloc memory with size which is slightly bigger than free
memory of targeted nodes, but much less then the total free memory
of system.
The reason is the code enters the slowpath of __alloc_pages_nodemask(),
which
20 matches
Mail list logo
