[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87il4bc5sy.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:03:09 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <luto@...nel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<bp@...en8.de>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<mhocko@...nel.org>, <tj@...nel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
<rakie.kim@...com>, <hyeongtak.ji@...com>, <honggyu.kim@...com>,
<vtavarespetr@...ron.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<jgroves@...ron.com>, <ravis.opensrc@...ron.com>,
<sthanneeru@...ron.com>, <emirakhur@...ron.com>, <Hasan.Maruf@....com>,
<seungjun.ha@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based
weighted_interleave interface
Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:45:53AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>
>> > The minimum functionality is everything receiving a default weight of 1,
>> > such that weighted interleave's behavior defaults to round-robin
>> > interleave. This gets the system off the ground.
>>
>> I don't think that we need to implement all functionalities now. But,
>> we may need to consider more especially if it may impact the user space
>> interface. The default base weight is something like that. If we
>> change the default base weight from "1" to "16" later, users may be
>> surprised. So, I think it's better to discuss it now.
>>
>
> This is a hill I don't particularly care to die on. I think the weights
> are likely to end up being set at boot and rebalanced as (rare) hotplug
> events occur.
>
> So if people think the default weight should be 3,16,24 or 123, i don't
> think it's going to matter.
>
>>
>> We can use a wrapper function to hide the logic.
>>
>
> Done. I'll push a new set tomorrow.
>
>> > I think it also allows MPOL_F_GWEIGHT to be eliminated.
>>
>> Do we need a way to distinguish whether to copy the global weights to
>> local weights when the memory policy is created? That is, when the
>> global weights are changed later, will the changes be used? One
>> possible solution is
>>
>> - If no weights are specified in set_mempolicy2(), the global weights
>> will be used always.
>>
>> - If at least one weight is specified in set_mempolicy2(), it will be
>> used, and the other weights in global weights will be copied to the
>> local weights. That is, changes to the global weights will not be
>> used.
>>
>
> What's confusing about that is that if a user sets a weight to 0,
> they'll get a non-0 weight - always.
>
> In my opinion, if we want to make '0' mean 'use system default', then
> it should mean 'ALWAYS use system default for this node'.
>
> "Use the system default at the time the syscall was called, and do not
> update to use a new system default if that default is changed" is
> confusing.
>
> If you say use a global value, use the global value. Simple.
I mainly have concerns about consistency. The global weights can be
changed while the local weights are fixed. For example,
- Weights of node 0,1 is [3, 1] initially
- Process A call set_mempolicy2() to set weights to [4, 0], that is, use
default weight for node 1.
- After hotplug, the weights of node is changed to [12, 4, 1], now the
effective weights used in process A becomes [4, 4]. Which is hardly
desired.
Another choice is to disallow "0" as weight in set_mempolicy2().
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists