Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes
From: Feng Tang <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-28 14:12:06
Also in:
linux-api, lkml
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: [...]quoted
@@ -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
quoted
@@ -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.quoted
@@ -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.quoted
@@ -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