[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201202114054.GV3306@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:40:54 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 RESEND 1/3] numa balancing: Migrate on fault among
multiple bound nodes
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:32PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> Now, NUMA balancing can only optimize the page placement among the
> NUMA nodes if the default memory policy is used. Because the memory
> policy specified explicitly should take precedence. But this seems
> too strict in some situations. For example, on a system with 4 NUMA
> nodes, if the memory of an application is bound to the node 0 and 1,
> NUMA balancing can potentially migrate the pages between the node 0
> and 1 to reduce cross-node accessing without breaking the explicit
> memory binding policy.
>
Ok, I think this part is ok and while the test case is somewhat
superficial, it at least demonstrated that the NUMA balancing overhead
did not offset any potential benefit
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists