Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: migrate: Add new node demotion strategy

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2021/11/8 16:12, Huang, Ying writes:
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2021/11/8 14:48, Huang, Ying writes:
>>> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2021/11/7 23:20, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/21 1:33 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for your suggestion. After some thinking, can we change the
>>>>>> node_demotion[] structure like below? Which means one source node can be
>>>>>> demoted to mutiple target node, and we can set up the target node mask
>>>>>> according to the node distance. How do you think? Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static nodemask_t node_demotion[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly =
>>>>>>        {[0 ... MAX_NUMNODES - 1] = NODE_MASK_NONE};
>>>>> How large is that in the worst case?
>>>>
>>>> For the worst case (MAX_NUMNODES=1024), the size of the node_demotion
>>>> is 131072 bytes, while the size of original data structure is 4096
>>>> bytes. Maybe we can allocate the node_demotion dynamically?
>>> Per my understanding, in most cases, the number of demotion target
>>> nodes
>>> should be quite small.  So why not restrict the number of demotion
>>> target nodes to make it some kind of simple array?
>>
>> Yes, agree. Something like below is reasonable for you?
>>
>> #define DEMOTION_TARGET_NODES 16
>> typedef struct { DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, DEMOTION_TARGET_NODES); }
>> demotemask_t;
>>
>> static demotemask_t node_demotion[MAX_NUMNODES];
> 
> I don't think we need a bitmap.  May be something as following,
> 
> #define DEMOTION_TARGET_NODES 15
> struct demotion_nodes {
>    unsigned short nr;
>    unsigned short nodes[DEMOTION_TARGET_NODES];
> };

OK. Let me try it in next version. Thanks.