[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o7txk963.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 15:39:00 +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 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.
>From overhead point of view, this appears similar as that of VMA/task
memory policy? We can make mm->owner available for memory tiers
(CONFIG_NUMA && CONFIG_MIGRATION). The advantage is that we don't need
to introduce new ABI. I guess users may prefer to use `numactl` than a
new ABI?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists