[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bkpwkg24.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:22:27 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
> On Thu 27-10-22 17:31:35, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu 27-10-22 15:39:00, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu 27-10-22 14:47:22, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> > I can imagine workloads which wouldn't like to get their memory demoted
>> >> >> > for some reason but wouldn't it be more practical to tell that
>> >> >> > explicitly (e.g. via prctl) rather than configuring cpusets/memory
>> >> >> > policies explicitly?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If my understanding were correct, prctl() configures the process or
>> >> >> thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not necessarily. There are properties which are per adddress space like
>> >> > PR_[GS]ET_THP_DISABLE. This could be very similar.
>> >> >
>> >> >> How can we get process/thread configuration at demotion time?
>> >> >
>> >> > As already pointed out in previous emails. You could hook into
>> >> > folio_check_references path, more specifically folio_referenced_one
>> >> > where you have all that you need already - all vmas mapping the page and
>> >> > then it is trivial to get the corresponding vm_mm. If at least one of
>> >> > them has the flag set then the demotion is not allowed (essentially the
>> >> > same model as VM_LOCKED).
>> >>
>> >> Got it! Thanks for detailed explanation.
>> >>
>> >> One bit may be not sufficient. For example, if we want to avoid or
>> >> control cross-socket demotion and still allow demoting to slow memory
>> >> nodes in local socket, we need to specify a node mask to exclude some
>> >> NUMA nodes from demotion targets.
>> >
>> > Isn't this something to be configured on the demotion topology side? Or
>> > do you expect there will be per process/address space usecases? I mean
>> > different processes running on the same topology, one requesting local
>> > demotion while other ok with the whole demotion topology?
>>
>> I think that it's possible for different processes have different
>> requirements.
>>
>> - Some processes don't care about where the memory is placed, prefer
>> local, then fall back to remote if no free space.
>>
>> - Some processes want to avoid cross-socket traffic, bind to nodes of
>> local socket.
>>
>> - Some processes want to avoid to use slow memory, bind to fast memory
>> node only.
>
> Yes, I do understand that. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
> [...]
Sorry, I don't have specific examples.
>> > If we really need/want to give a fine grained control over demotion
>> > nodemask then we would have to go with vma->mempolicy interface. In
>> > any case a per process on/off knob sounds like a reasonable first step
>> > before we learn more about real usecases.
>>
>> Yes. Per-mm or per-vma property is much better than per-task property.
>> Another possibility, how about add a new flag to set_mempolicy() system
>> call to set the per-mm mempolicy? `numactl` can use that by default.
>
> Do you mean a flag to control whether the given policy is applied to a
> task or mm?
Yes. That is the idea.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists