[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70973a55-63a0-4a85-abe5-d8681fdb3886@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:10:34 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <ying.huang@...el.com>, <willy@...radead.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: support large folio numa balancing
On 2023/11/13 18:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.11.23 11:45, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> Currently, the file pages already support large folio, and supporting for
>> anonymous pages is also under discussion[1]. Moreover, the numa balancing
>> code are converted to use a folio by previous thread[2], and the
>> migrate_pages
>> function also already supports the large folio migration.
>>
>> So now I did not see any reason to continue restricting NUMA balancing
>> for
>> large folio.
>
> I recall John wanted to look into that. CCing him.
>
> I'll note that the "head page mapcount" heuristic to detect sharers will
> now strike on the PTE path and make us believe that a large folios is
> exclusive, although it isn't.
>
> As spelled out in the commit you are referencing:
>
> commit 6695cf68b15c215d33b8add64c33e01e3cbe236c
> Author: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> Date: Thu Sep 21 15:44:14 2023 +0800
>
> mm: memory: use a folio in do_numa_page()
> Numa balancing only try to migrate non-compound page in
> do_numa_page(),
> use a folio in it to save several compound_head calls, note we use
> folio_estimated_sharers(), it is enough to check the folio sharers
> since
> only normal page is handled, if large folio numa balancing is
> supported, a
> precise folio sharers check would be used, no functional change
> intended.
>
>
> I'll send WIP patches for one approach that can improve the situation
> soonish.
When convert numa balance to use folio, I make similar change, it works
with large anon folio(test with v5), but David's precise folio sharers
should be merged firstly, also if a large folio shared by many process,
we maybe split it, don't sure about it, this need some evaluation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists