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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 AAE8EC43387 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786BE206C0 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728735AbfAGOJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:09:39 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:54004 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727008AbfAGOJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:09:39 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x07E98EY003303 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 09:09:37 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pv6f5nkb9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:09:37 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:35 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:30 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x07E9Tbq45940774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:29 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D374C050; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBAC4C04A; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skywalker.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.199.42.180]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:09:21 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: emacs 26.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Fengguang Wu Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List , Fan Du , kvm@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Yao Yuan , Peng Dong , Huang Ying , Liu Jingqi , Dong Eddie , Dave Hansen , Zhang Yi , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 10/21] mm: build separate zonelist for PMEM and DRAM node In-Reply-To: <20190107095753.7feee5fxjja5lt75@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <20181226131446.330864849@intel.com> <20181226133351.644607371@intel.com> <87sgyc7n9a.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <20190107095753.7feee5fxjja5lt75@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 19:39:19 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19010714-0008-0000-0000-000002AC5190 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19010714-0009-0000-0000-000022185B95 Message-Id: <87h8ekk19s.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-07_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901070126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Fengguang Wu writes: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 02:44:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>Fengguang Wu writes: >> >>> From: Fan Du >>> >>> When allocate page, DRAM and PMEM node should better not fall back to >>> each other. This allows migration code to explicitly control which type >>> of node to allocate pages from. >>> >>> With this patch, PMEM NUMA node can only be used in 2 ways: >>> - migrate in and out >>> - numactl >> >>Can we achieve this using nodemask? That way we don't tag nodes with >>different properties such as DRAM/PMEM. We can then give the >>flexibilility to the device init code to add the new memory nodes to >>the right nodemask > > Aneesh, in patch 2 we did create nodemask numa_nodes_pmem and > numa_nodes_dram. What's your supposed way of "using nodemask"? > IIUC the patch is to avoid allocation from PMEM nodes and the way you achieve it is by checking if (is_node_pmem(n)). We already have abstractness to avoid allocation from a node using node mask. I was wondering whether we can do the equivalent of above using that. ie, __next_zone_zonelist can do zref_in_nodemask(z, default_exclude_nodemask)) and decide whether to use the specific zone or not. That way we don't add special code like + PGDAT_DRAM, /* Volatile DRAM memory node */ + PGDAT_PMEM, /* Persistent memory node */ The reason is that there could be other device memory that would want to get excluded from that default allocation like you are doing for PMEM -aneesh