[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mu4knjq8.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 08:48:31 +0800
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<rientjes@...gle.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] mm/numa: new reclaim mode to enable reclaim-based migration
Hi, Yang,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>> diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~enable-numa-demotion mm/vmscan.c
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c~enable-numa-demotion 2020-06-29 16:35:01.017312549 -0700
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c 2020-06-29 16:35:01.023312549 -0700
>>> @@ -4165,9 +4165,10 @@ int node_reclaim_mode __read_mostly;
>>> * These bit locations are exposed in the vm.zone_reclaim_mode sysctl
>>> * ABI. New bits are OK, but existing bits can never change.
>>> */
>>> -#define RECLAIM_RSVD (1<<0) /* (currently ignored/unused) */
>>> -#define RECLAIM_WRITE (1<<1) /* Writeout pages during reclaim */
>>> -#define RECLAIM_UNMAP (1<<2) /* Unmap pages during reclaim */
>>> +#define RECLAIM_RSVD (1<<0) /* (currently ignored/unused) */
>>> +#define RECLAIM_WRITE (1<<1) /* Writeout pages during reclaim */
>>> +#define RECLAIM_UNMAP (1<<2) /* Unmap pages during reclaim */
>>> +#define RECLAIM_MIGRATE (1<<3) /* Migrate pages during reclaim */
>>> /*
>>> * Priority for NODE_RECLAIM. This determines the fraction of pages
>> I found that RECLAIM_MIGRATE is defined but never referenced in the
>> patch.
>>
>> If my understanding of the code were correct, shrink_do_demote_mapping()
>> is called by shrink_page_list(), which is used by kswapd and direct
>> reclaim. So as long as the persistent memory node is onlined,
>> reclaim-based migration will be enabled regardless of node reclaim mode.
>
> It looks so according to the code. But the intention of a new node
> reclaim mode is to do migration on reclaim *only when* the
> RECLAIM_MODE is enabled by the users.
>
> It looks the patch just clear the migration target node masks if the
> memory is offlined.
>
> So, I'm supposed you need check if node_reclaim is enabled before
> doing migration in shrink_page_list() and also need make node reclaim
> to adopt the new mode.
But why shouldn't we migrate in kswapd and direct reclaim? I think that
we may need a way to control it, but shouldn't disable it
unconditionally.
> Please refer to
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1560468577-101178-6-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com/
>
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists