From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
ying.huang@intel.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:11:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210728141156.GC43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YQFOB4UDK+dNZeOV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:31:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for a late review]
Not at all. Thank you for all your reviews and suggestions from v1
to v6!
> On Mon 12-07-21 16:09:29, Feng Tang wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -1887,7 +1909,8 @@ nodemask_t *policy_nodemask(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy)
> > /* Return the node id preferred by the given mempolicy, or the given id */
> > static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd)
> > {
> > - if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED) {
> > + if (policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED ||
> > + policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
> > nd = first_node(policy->nodes);
> > } else {
> > /*
>
> Do we really want to have the preferred node to be always the first node
> in the node mask? Shouldn't that strive for a locality as well? Existing
> callers already prefer numa_node_id() - aka local node - and I belive we
> shouldn't just throw that away here.
I think it's about the difference of 'local' and 'prefer/perfer-many'
policy. There are different kinds of memory HW: HBM(High Bandwidth
Memory), normal DRAM, PMEM (Persistent Memory), which have different
price, bandwidth, speed etc. A platform may have two, or all three of
these types, and there are real use case which want memory comes
'preferred' node/nodes than the local node.
And good point for 'local node', if the 'prefer-many' policy's
nodemask has local node set, we should pick it han this
'first_node', and the same semantic also applies to the other
several places you pointed out. Or do I misunderstand you point?
Thanks,
Feng
> > @@ -1931,6 +1954,7 @@ unsigned int mempolicy_slab_node(void)
> >
> > switch (policy->mode) {
> > case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> > + case MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY:
> > return first_node(policy->nodes);
>
> Similarly here but I am not really familiar with the slab numa code
> enough to have strong opinions here.
>
> > @@ -2173,10 +2198,12 @@ struct page *alloc_pages_vma(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > * node and don't fall back to other nodes, as the cost of
> > * remote accesses would likely offset THP benefits.
> > *
> > - * If the policy is interleave, or does not allow the current
> > - * node in its nodemask, we allocate the standard way.
> > + * If the policy is interleave or multiple preferred nodes, or
> > + * does not allow the current node in its nodemask, we allocate
> > + * the standard way.
> > */
> > - if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED)
> > + if ((pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED ||
> > + pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY))
> > hpage_node = first_node(pol->nodes);
>
> Same here.
>
> > @@ -2451,6 +2479,9 @@ int mpol_misplaced(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
> > break;
> >
> > case MPOL_PREFERRED:
> > + case MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY:
> > + if (node_isset(curnid, pol->nodes))
> > + goto out;
> > polnid = first_node(pol->nodes);
> > break;
>
> I do not follow what is the point of using first_node here. Either the
> node is in the mask or it is misplaced. What are you trying to achieve
> here?
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-28 14:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-12 8:09 [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:31 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 14:11 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2021-07-28 16:12 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-29 7:09 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-29 13:38 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-29 15:12 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-29 16:21 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-30 3:05 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-30 6:36 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-30 7:18 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-30 7:38 ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-02 8:11 ` Feng Tang
2021-08-02 11:14 ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-02 11:33 ` Feng Tang
2021-08-02 11:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] mm/memplicy: add page allocation function for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 15:18 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-28 15:25 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-28 16:15 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 16:14 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] mm/mempolicy: enable page allocation for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for general cases Feng Tang
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-07-21 20:49 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-07-22 8:11 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-22 9:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-22 16:21 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] mm/mempolicy: Advertise new MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 13:41 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-12 8:09 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for bind/interleave/prefer-many policies Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 13:50 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-15 0:15 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy Andrew Morton
2021-07-15 2:13 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-15 18:49 ` Dave Hansen
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=20210728141156.GC43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--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).