Re: [PATCH 0/7] Accelerate page migration with batch copying and hardware offload

["Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@amd.com>]

On 5/12/2026 7:45 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> "Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@amd.com> writes:
> 
>> On 5/9/2026 1:19 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> "Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@amd.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2026 4:58 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Shivank,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@amd.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/30/2026 2:17 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>> Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com> writes:
>>>>>>


>> Thanks. Below tables sweep NR_MAX_BATCHED_MIGRATION from 512 up to 262144. On 2M folios,
>> 16-channel PTDMA, the knee is at N=8192-16384 (= {16 to 32} * 512 ).
>>
>>>>>>   8192         12.56 |   2424        26.57 |   1118        58.72 |    470 *
> 
>         2048         12.30 |    613        25.47 |    290        25.48 |    291
> 
> IIUC, N=2048 already helps dma4.  And, the latency looks OK too.  The
> good batch size is hardware configuration dependent too?  If so, we may
> need to add another migrator callback for that.

Yeah, right. 

>> One thing worth flagging on the "bounded default": at the upstream cap of 512 pages,
>> migrate_pages_batch() receives at most one 2M folio per call, so PTDMA can only use
>> one of its 16 channels per batch and the offload reduces to vanilla. (DCBM offloads
>> one 2M folio to each channel).
>> The larger-N rows are what exercise the channel parallelism for PTDMA case.
>>
>> "SDXI"[1] like memory-to-memory data movers should reach good throughput with just 1 channel, 
>> and thus may not require increasing the NR_MAX_BATCHED_MIGRATION for good throughput.
>>
>> I'm not tying series this to specific perf default for now, the design review (batch-copy
>> path, migrator interface, registration, static_call dispatch) is the part I'd like to converge
>> on first, then tune the threshold after it. Does that ordering work?
> 
> IMHO, we need some performance data to justify the added complexity.
> So, threshold tuning isn't the goal, whether we can get better
> throughput with some bounded latency is.
> 

Fair point. 

As you pointed PTDMA-4chan gives both tput and inaccessible time improvement.
PTDMA 16-chan could be preferred by some who value throuhgput more.
And this is different for different hardware. So, I think another callback for
this sounds like good idea.

Thanks,
Shivank