On Thu 29-07-21 15:09:18, Feng Tang wrote:

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 06:12:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Wed 28-07-21 22:11:56, Feng Tang wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:31:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

[Sorry for a late review]

Not at all. Thank you for all your reviews and suggestions from v1
to v6!

quoted

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?

Yeah. Essentially what I am trying to tell is that for
MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY you simply want to return the given node without any
alternation. That node will be used for the fallback zonelist and the
nodemask would make sure we won't get out of the policy.

I think I got your point now :)

With current mainline code, the 'prefer' policy will return the preferred
node.

Yes this makes sense as there is only one node.

For 'prefer-many', we would like to keep the similar semantic, that the
preference of node is 'preferred' > 'local' > all other nodes.

Yes but which of the preferred nodes you want to start with. Say your
nodemask preferring nodes 0 and 2 with the following topology
	0	1	2	3
0	10	30	20	30
1	30	10	20	30
2	20	30	10	30
3	30	30	30	10

And say you are running on cpu 1. I believe you want your allocation
preferably from node 2 rathern than 0, right? With your approach you
would start with node 0 which would be more distant from cpu 1. Also the
semantic to give nodes some ordering based on their numbers sounds
rather weird to me.

The semantic I am proposing is to allocate from prefered nodes in
distance order starting from the local node.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs