On 2/17/26 4:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 16-02-26 23:48:42, JP Kobryn (Meta) wrote:
On 2/16/26 1:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
[*] btw. I believe you misaccount MPOL_LOCAL because you attribute the
target node even when the allocation is from a remote node from the
"local" POV.
It's a good point. The accounting as a result of fallback cases
shouldn't detract from an investigation though. We're interested in the
node(s) under pressure so the relatively few fallback allocations would
land on nodes that are not under pressure and could be viewed as
acceptable noise.
This is really confusing. You simply have no means to tell the
difference between the requested node and the real node used so you
cannot really say whether the memory pressure is because of fallbacks or
your mempolicy configurations. That means that you cannot tell the
difference between the source of the pressure and victim of that
pressure.
What if I excluded the fallback cases? I could get the actual node from
the allocated page and compare against the requested node or node mask.
