On 4/1/25 19:50, Joanne Koong wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:11 AM Bernd Schubert > <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 4/1/25 01:42, Joanne Koong wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:57 PM Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is a 1:1 mapping between cpus and queues. Allocate the queue on >>>> the numa node associated with the cpu to help reduce memory access >>>> latencies. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> fs/fuse/dev_uring.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev_uring.c b/fs/fuse/dev_uring.c >>>> index accdce2977c5..0762d6229ac6 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/fuse/dev_uring.c >>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev_uring.c >>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static struct fuse_ring_queue *fuse_uring_create_queue(struct fuse_ring *ring, >>>> struct fuse_ring_queue *queue; >>>> struct list_head *pq; >>>> >>>> - queue = kzalloc(sizeof(*queue), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT); >>>> + queue = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*queue), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT, cpu_to_node(qid)); >>>> if (!queue) >>>> return NULL; >>>> pq = kcalloc(FUSE_PQ_HASH_SIZE, sizeof(struct list_head), GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> On the same note I guess we should also allocate pq on the >>> corresponding numa node too. >> >> So this is supposed to be called from a thread that already runs on this >> numa node and then kmalloc will allocate anyway on the right node, >> afaik. Do you have a use case where this is called from another node? If >> you do, all allocations in this file should be changed. >> > > I don't have a use case I'm using but imo it seems hardier to ensure > this at the kernel level for queue, pq, and ent allocations instead of > assuming userspace will always submit the registration from the thread > on the numa node corresponding to the qid it's registering. I don't > feel strongly about this though so if you think the responsibility > should be left to userspace, then that's fine with me. > What I basically mean is that these threads are going to send the initial SQE, shouldn't it? Sounds a bit weird to me if the setup and sending the registration SQE are from different threads than the later handling. Thanks, Bernd
