All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, ljs@kernel.org, liam@infradead.org,
	rppt@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	skhan@linuxfoundation.org, ziy@nvidia.com,
	joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, gourry@gourry.net,
	ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, apopple@nvidia.com
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/numa_balancing: allow migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE policy
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:26:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cfdcaaa3-a9e7-4352-ab01-4922ebb8e0c9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260930072617.64665-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com>

On 9/30/26 09:26, Li Zhe wrote:
> MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE is useful on tiered-memory systems because it
> can seed a workload's new allocations across fast memory and slower
> capacity memory according to a configured ratio.
> 
> That initial placement is useful for workload managers and orchestration
> systems.  They can take the amount of fast memory and slower capacity
> memory on a machine into account before starting a workload, and choose a
> weighted policy that seeds the workload across the tiers at allocation
> time.  This avoids starting from an all-fast or all-slow placement and
> then relying on promotion or demotion to reshape a large working set.
> 
> After those pages have been placed, however, the policy cannot currently
> opt in to migrate-on-fault placement.  set_mempolicy() and mbind()
> reject MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE when MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING is specified,
> so memory tiering cannot promote hot pages that were initially placed on
> the slower nodes by the weighted policy.
> 
> Initial placement is only a starting point.  Pages initially allocated on
> fast memory are not necessarily the long-term hot pages, and pages
> initially allocated on slower memory may become hot as the workload's hot
> set changes.  The policy therefore needs to be able to combine weighted
> initial placement with memory tiering's NUMA fault based hot-page
> promotion.

Ok, so memory allocation will respect the weights but balancing will ignore
them? That really sounds rather odd to me.

And I assume that was the reason why we might have disallowed the combination:
it turns a weighted mechanism into an unweighted mechanism.

So are we really sure these semantics that you would essentially set in stone
here are the semantics we want? (ignoring weights)

-- 
Cheers,

David


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-30 11:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-30  7:26 [PATCH] mm/numa_balancing: allow migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE policy Li Zhe
2026-09-30  8:43 ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30  8:59   ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30  9:11     ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 10:59       ` Joshua Hahn
2026-09-30 11:22       ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 12:25         ` Gregory Price
2026-10-02  7:25           ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 11:26 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-09-30 11:52   ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 12:11     ` Joshua Hahn
2026-09-30 14:02       ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 14:50         ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 15:10           ` Zi Yan
2026-10-01 10:54             ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-10-01 11:18               ` Zi Yan
2026-10-01 13:26               ` Gregory Price
2026-10-02  7:56                 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-10-02  8:15                   ` Li Zhe
2026-10-02 12:05                     ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 12:03   ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 12:32     ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-30 13:40       ` Gregory Price
2026-10-01 10:55         ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cfdcaaa3-a9e7-4352-ab01-4922ebb8e0c9@kernel.org \
    --to=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.