On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:28:21 +0000
Nathan Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> When tmpfs has the memory policy interleaved it always starts allocating at 
> each file at node 0.
> When there are many small files the lower nodes fill up disproportionately.
> My proposed solution is to start a file at a randomly chosen node.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct shmem_inode_info {
>               char            *symlink;       /* unswappable short symlink */
>       };
>       struct shared_policy    policy;         /* NUMA memory alloc policy */
> +     int                     node_offset;    /* bias for interleaved nodes */
>       struct list_head        swaplist;       /* chain of maybes on swap */
>       struct list_head        xattr_list;     /* list of shmem_xattr */
>       struct inode            vfs_inode;
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index f99ff3e..58ef512 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static struct page *shmem_alloc_page(gfp_t gfp,
>  
>       /* Create a pseudo vma that just contains the policy */
>       pvma.vm_start = 0;
> -     pvma.vm_pgoff = index;
> +     pvma.vm_pgoff = index + info->node_offset;
>       pvma.vm_ops = NULL;
>       pvma.vm_policy = mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&info->policy, index);
>  
> @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct inode *shmem_get_inode(struct super_block 
> *sb, const struct inode
>                       inode->i_fop = &shmem_file_operations;
>                       mpol_shared_policy_init(&info->policy,
>                                                shmem_get_sbmpol(sbinfo));
> +                     info->node_offset = node_random(&node_online_map);
>                       break;
>               case S_IFDIR:
>                       inc_nlink(inode);

The patch seems a bit arbitrary and hacky.  It would have helped if you
had fully described how it works, and why this implementation was
chosen.

- Why alter (actually, lie about!) the offset-into-file?  Could we
  have similarly perturbed the address arg to alloc_page_vma() to do
  the spreading?

- The patch is dependent upon MPOL_INTERLEAVE being in effect, isn't
  it?  How do we guarantee that it is in force here?

- We look up the policy via mpol_shared_policy_lookup() using the
  unperturbed index.  Why?  Should we be using index+info->node_offset
  there?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to