[PATCH] slub: Don't throw away partial remote slabs if there is no local memory

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 05.02.2014 [13:28:03 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 
> > > If the target node allocation fails (for whatever reason) then I would
> > > recommend for simplicities sake to change the target node to
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE and just take whatever is in the current cpu slab. A more
> > > complex solution would be to look through partial lists in increasing
> > > distance to find a partially used slab that is reasonable close to the
> > > current node. Slab has logic like that in fallback_alloc(). Slubs
> > > get_any_partial() function does something close to what you want.
> >
> > I apologize for my own ignorance, but I'm having trouble following.
> > Anton's original patch did fallback to the current cpu slab, but I'm not
> > sure any NUMA_NO_NODE change is necessary there. At the point we're
> > deactivating the slab (in the current code, in __slab_alloc()), we have
> > successfully allocated from somewhere, it's just not on the node we
> > expected to be on.
> 
> Right so if we are ignoring the node then the simplest thing to do is to
> not deactivate the current cpu slab but to take an object from it.

Ok, that's what Anton's patch does, I believe. Are you ok with that
patch as it is?

> > So perhaps you are saying to make a change lower in the code? I'm not
> > sure where it makes sense to change the target node in that case. I'd
> > appreciate any guidance you can give.
> 
> This not an easy thing to do. If the current slab is not the right node
> but would be the node from which the page allocator would be returning
> memory then the current slab can still be allocated from. If the fallback
> is to another node then the current cpu slab needs to be deactivated and
> the allocation from that node needs to proceeed. Have a look at
> fallback_alloc() in the slab allocator.
> 
> A allocation attempt from the page allocator can be restricted to a
> specific node through GFP_THIS_NODE.

Thanks for the pointers, I will try and take a look.

Thanks,
Nish