[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMkpM95vdc9wgs9T@x1n>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:48:03 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
liubo <liubo254@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] mm/gup: reintroduce FOLL_NUMA as
FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:48:37PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @@ -2240,6 +2244,12 @@ static bool is_valid_gup_args(struct page **pages, int *locked,
> gup_flags |= FOLL_UNLOCKABLE;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * For now, always trigger NUMA hinting faults. Some GUP users like
> + * KVM really require it to benefit from autonuma.
> + */
> + gup_flags |= FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT;
Since at it, do we want to not set it for FOLL_REMOTE, which still sounds
like a good thing to have?
Other than that, looks good here.
Side note: when I was looking at the flags again just to check the
interactions over numa balancing, I found FOLL_NOFAULT and I highly suspect
that's not needed, instead it just wants to use follow_page[_mask]() with
some proper gup flags passed over.. but that's off topic.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists