Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] memcg weighted interleave mempolicy control

["Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 04:19:02PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> writes:
>> 
>> > If the structure is built as a matrix of (cpu_node,mem_nodes),
>> > the you can also optimize based on the node the task is running on.
>> 
>> The matrix stuff makes the situation complex.  If people do need
>> something like that, they can just use set_memorypolicy2() with user
>> specified weights.  I still believe that "make simple stuff simple, and
>> complex stuff possible".
>> 
>
> I don't think it's particularly complex, since we already have a
> distance matrix for numa nodes:
>
> available: 2 nodes (0-1)
> ... snip ...
> node distances:
> node   0   1
>   0:  10  21
>   1:  21  10
>
> This would follow the same thing, just adjustable for bandwidth.

We add complexity for requirement. Not there's something similar
already.

> I personally find the (src,dst) matrix very important for flexibility.

With set_memorypolicy2(), I think we have the needed flexibility for
users needs the complexity.

> But if there is particular pushback against it, having a one dimensional
> array is better than not having it, so I will take what I can get.

TBH, I don't think that we really need that.  Especially given we will
have set_memorypolicy2().

>> > That feels very intuitive, deals with many race condition issues, and
>> > the global setting can actually be implemented without the need for
>> > set_mempolicy2 at all - which is certainly a bonus.
>> >
>> > Would love more thoughts here.  Will have a new RFC with set_mempolicy2,
>> > mbind2, and MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE soon that demonstrate the above.
>> 
>> Thanks for doing all these!
>> 
>
> Someone's got to :]
>

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying