[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZN2qg4cPC2hEgtmY@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:05:07 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
CC: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>,
<mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, <apopple@...dia.com>, <jgg@...dia.com>,
<rppt@...nel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<kevin.tian@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Reduce NUMA balance caused TLB-shootdowns in
a VM
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:00:36AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/16/23 02:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > But do 32bit architectures even care about NUMA hinting? If not, just
> > ignore them ...
>
> Probably not!
>
> ...
> > > So, do you mean that let kernel provide a per-VMA allow/disallow
> > > mechanism, and
> > > it's up to the user space to choose between per-VMA and complex way or
> > > global and simpler way?
> >
> > QEMU could do either way. The question would be if a per-vma settings
> > makes sense for NUMA hinting.
>
> From our experience with compute on GPUs, a per-mm setting would suffice.
> No need to go all the way to VMA granularity.
>
After an offline internal discussion, we think a per-mm setting is also
enough for device passthrough in VMs.
BTW, if we want a per-VMA flag, compared to VM_NO_NUMA_BALANCING, do you
think it's of any value to providing a flag like VM_MAYDMA?
Auto NUMA balancing or other components can decide how to use it by
themselves.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists