From: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, honggyu.kim@sk.com, rakie.kim@sk.com,
hyeongtak.ji@sk.com, mhocko@kernel.org, vtavarespetr@micron.com,
jgroves@micron.com, ravis.opensrc@micron.com,
sthanneeru@micron.com, emirakhur@micron.com, Hasan.Maruf@amd.com,
seungjun.ha@samsung.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
dan.j.williams@intel.com,
Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru.opensrc@micron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted interleaving
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 23:54:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Za9GiqsZtcfKXc5m@memverge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87jzo0vjkk.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:02:03AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > + int prev_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>
> It appears that we should initialize prev_node with me->il_prev?
> Details are as below.
>
yeah good catch, was a rebase error from my tested code, where this is
the case. patching now.
> > + if (rem_pages <= pol->wil.cur_weight) {
> > + pol->wil.cur_weight -= rem_pages;
>
> If "pol->wil.cur_weight == 0" here, we need to change me->il_prev?
>
you are right, and also need to fetch the next cur_weight. Seems I
missed this specific case in my tests. (had this tested with a single
node but not 2, so it looked right).
Added to my test suite.
> We can replace "weight_nodes" with "i" and use a "for" loop?
>
> > + while (weight_nodes < nnodes) {
> > + node = next_node_in(prev_node, nodes);
>
> IIUC, "node" will not change in the loop, so all "weight" below will be
> the same value. To keep it simple, I think we can just copy weights
> from the global iw_table and consider the default value?
>
another rebase error here from my tested code, this should have been
node = prev_node;
while (...)
node = next_node_in(node, nodes);
I can change it to a for loop as suggested, but for more info on why I
did it this way, see the chunk below
> > + } else if (!delta_depleted) {
> > + /* if there was no delta, track last allocated node */
> > + resume_node = node;
> > + resume_weight = i < (nnodes - 1) ? weights[i+1] :
> > + weights[0];
^ this line acquires the weight of the *NEXT* node
another chunk prior to this does the same
thing. I suppose i can use next_node_in()
instead and just copy the entire weigh array
though, if that is preferable.
> > + }
>
> Can the above code be simplified as something like below?
>
> resume_node = prev_node;
> resume_weight = 0;
> for (...) {
> ...
> if (delta > weight) {
> node_pages += weight;
> delta -= weight;
> } else if (delta) {
> node_pages += delta;
> /* if delta depleted, resume from this node */
> if (delta < weight) {
> resume_node = prev_node;
> resume_weight = weight - delta;
> } else {
> resume_node = node;
> }
> delta = 0;
> }
> ...
> }
>
I'll take another look at it, but this logic is annoying because of the
corner case: me->il_prev can be NUMA_NO_NODE or an actual numa node.
If it's NUMA_NO_NODE, then the logic you have above will say "the next
node has no remaining weights assigned" and skip it on the next call to
weighted_interleave_nid or weighted_interleave_nodes.
This is incorrect - we want the weight of the first node to be
resume_weight, which is what this chunk does:
if (delta >= weight) {
/* if delta == weight, get next node weight */
resume_weight = i < (nnodes - 1) ? weights[i+1] : weights[0];
else if (delta) { /* delta < weight */
/* there's a remaining weight, use the that for resume weight */
resume_weight = weight - (node_pages % weight);
} else if (!delta_depleted) {
/* there was never a delta, track the last node and get the weight
* of the node AFTER that node, that's the resume weight */
resume_weight = i < (nnodes - 1) ? weights[i+1] : weights[0];
}
If il_prev is an actual node, and delta == 0, we want to return with
(il_prev = prev_node) but with the weight set to the weight of the
first node we're about to allocate from.
This is the reason for the annoying logic here: We have to come out of
this loop with the actual node and the actual weight.
I'll try to clean it up further and get my test suite to pass.
~Gregory
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-23 4:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-19 17:57 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/mempolicy: weighted interleave mempolicy and sysfs extension Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface Gregory Price
2024-01-22 8:03 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-22 16:58 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/mempolicy: refactor a read-once mechanism into a function for re-use Gregory Price
2024-01-19 17:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted interleaving Gregory Price
2024-01-23 3:02 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 4:54 ` Gregory Price [this message]
2024-01-23 5:16 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-23 8:35 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 21:27 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-24 1:51 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-24 18:01 ` Gregory Price
2024-01-23 8:13 ` Huang, Ying
2024-01-23 8:40 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Za9GiqsZtcfKXc5m@memverge.com \
--to=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=Hasan.Maruf@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=emirakhur@micron.com \
--cc=gourry.memverge@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=honggyu.kim@sk.com \
--cc=hyeongtak.ji@sk.com \
--cc=jgroves@micron.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
--cc=ravis.opensrc@micron.com \
--cc=seungjun.ha@samsung.com \
--cc=sthanneeru.opensrc@micron.com \
--cc=sthanneeru@micron.com \
--cc=vtavarespetr@micron.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).