From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E136CC433ED for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAAE61179 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:02:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6FAAE61179 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E95A86B0099; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E48096B009B; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CE74E6B009C; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0007.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.7]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62B86B0099 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBE65DD1 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:02:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78030985200.07.DCC9655 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7CA80192E6 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:01:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1618405315; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WK2tglOodrWcHX/sWIFzGgFANwYLOhHY9/+WgOzzF7I=; b=kPNlVeT3TOhJTXtx1tmHbTs2rzMWQYKHxZybvqPagHlWlCwPmBccMfD6uQo/jUjZGyKp7o yImTJv13aIsF0+sCNJYP6uqNzuHoIr8YcElZhrSWvxGNLVlPMurWICdGqYyB+ZsTHSUGXk blMP2QsrHwsnRMe/OQqG6oHVQ4XYTcA= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADEDAFAB; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:01:55 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/13] mm/mempolicy: handle MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY like BIND Message-ID: References: <1615952410-36895-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1615952410-36895-8-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1615952410-36895-8-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> X-Stat-Signature: c3c4aoo45hkhrbe3pscxp4mmgowpaxdr X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6E7CA80192E6 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf16; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618405318-911986 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 17-03-21 11:40:04, Feng Tang wrote: > From: Ben Widawsky > > Begin the real plumbing for handling this new policy. Now that the > internal representation for preferred nodes and bound nodes is the same, > and we can envision what multiple preferred nodes will behave like, > there are obvious places where we can simply reuse the bind behavior. > > In v1 of this series, the moral equivalent was: > "mm: Finish handling MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY". Like that, this attempts to > implement the easiest spots for the new policy. Unlike that, this just > reuses BIND. No, this is a bug step back. I think we really want to treat this as PREFERRED. It doesn't have much to do with the BIND semantic at all. At this stage there should be 2 things remaining - syscalls plumbing and 2 pass allocation request (optimistic preferred nodes restricted and fallback to all nodes). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs