linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:38:44 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for
 multiple preferred nodes

On Thu 29-07-21 15:09:18, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 06:12:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 28-07-21 22:11:56, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > 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:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > @@ -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