From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/13] mm/mempolicy: handle MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY like BIND
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:01:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHbnwyITOehcVn0S@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1615952410-36895-8-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
On Wed 17-03-21 11:40:04, Feng Tang wrote:
> From: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
>
> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-17 3:39 [PATCH v4 00/13] Introduced multi-preference mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 01/13] mm/mempolicy: Add comment for missing LOCAL Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] mm/mempolicy: convert single preferred_node to full nodemask Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 03/13] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-20 7:16 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-13 7:23 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-13 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Feng Tang
2021-05-13 13:55 ` Andi Kleen
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 04/13] mm/mempolicy: allow preferred code to take a nodemask Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-19 8:49 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 05/13] mm/mempolicy: refactor rebind code for PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 06/13] mm/mempolicy: kill v.preferred_nodes Feng Tang
2021-04-14 12:58 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 07/13] mm/mempolicy: handle MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY like BIND Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:01 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 08/13] mm/mempolicy: Create a page allocator for policy Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-15 8:17 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 09/13] mm/mempolicy: Thread allocation for many preferred Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 10/13] mm/mempolicy: VMA " Feng Tang
2021-04-14 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 11/13] mm/mempolicy: huge-page " Feng Tang
2021-03-17 7:19 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-14 13:25 ` Michal Hocko
2021-04-15 7:41 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 12/13] mm/mempolicy: Advertise new MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-03-17 3:40 ` [PATCH v4 13/13] mem/mempolicy: unify mpol_new_preferred() and mpol_new_preferred_many() Feng Tang
2021-04-14 11:21 ` [PATCH v4 00/13] Introduced multi-preference mempolicy Michal Hocko
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=YHbnwyITOehcVn0S@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.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=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).