From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA8FAC43458 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:47:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1EEC76B00EB; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 1C6286B00ED; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 104126B00F0; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D036B00EB for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (lb01a-stub [10.200.18.249]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDC58CC0F for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:47:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 84933834006.29.FC79152 Received: from mail-qt1-f173.google.com (mail-qt1-f173.google.com [209.85.160.173]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F493160003 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg.org header.s=google header.b=GcSEKVgt; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.160.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; cv=none; t=1782758861; b=LAbYpHkYKFCfP3GER3dp3MSZl1xzGiTM8j80co5Bq++9DYziuqb/DvjmgwjC6cSSSkXo0p 3gTnPdZKafvrtKBpQMLYkf1JSEWENSMw46NEWndwHPErIihxcHpKw9rYfToMfIK+xpa7Pq 7ie9TgYODRf1ltWvNqhF3+bWeHG6w/0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1782758861; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=7ysXCP313kAdt03KShf1kvSecozhx/22zS/+otoUNAg=; b=hV9L+QdZg65Ok3xaPkl2kW00hwLmBG0zSeT390ZAL9posOtcAjpCpiKoEUSlXd/XxqR8FQ LESlUcj2nXknZKVaT5EG76YIjc35ZMMAUF4BEo31w73zK352XmydlDP76bXfuZ9CaIPgEl kblxN2h24K/rFwTYgXdfSIXH5HQVjMI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg.org header.s=google header.b=GcSEKVgt; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.160.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Received: by mail-qt1-f173.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-51bee804d15so15780151cf.0 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg.org; s=google; t=1782758860; x=1783363660; darn=kvack.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7ysXCP313kAdt03KShf1kvSecozhx/22zS/+otoUNAg=; b=GcSEKVgtjuNCoUmK+Eei7mrmQmkUZhDSzbijcoEUQPoDJGQbfbUukh4MZyFm3Ej4pc /1WdWMo1OG8swhtTCHrMcofJvM9UxBbuIj0m/rYT7e/mn50WdsMf22n5bXCvHcJbQdUI paQVs3Xz/u2/L9s04SW4TUltYgxgDMF3+bKgv77ikhWG5jiWSWC/5gzaHUoqHBNnJOwA f150HT3tdpKl4rrjfT/vxMQRVqV9VPUAonkNx9BLbTSG8FvlWEoZZBYqJeFVGVnB54b8 I1LSAfuubZwUYJfPoQtllXfvVV6crIbQXm7V83BEjLRXvOuMyQAfRgCy8bWYouTbAGWJ 40Kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1782758860; x=1783363660; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7ysXCP313kAdt03KShf1kvSecozhx/22zS/+otoUNAg=; b=Py3Wukgupf4eH/E7yfeEZeYVgOo3wt1tZa+F2kLhvDezj/VScGbliJOQKcclXP1/pS fOt1K9FQTXN8f2ntD7iTezOmMHKqrVQ/KCm5AP695XK23MH615RO2D77vJfCmSLMhl0y VFWydlTjMJF0izboXLf5M7gAQAfrdj7FhLh4LIXXoFtZmObr4Hg1oVSgUYPevKb/cU6K S7d5vZWG9c+y7SNY3EwYJglBmpd17CWxT64KURLUTy3RpTBzQ0Avxy/+1sxCNEa6gjHv GbF/fcLaM8IXvNt0hq9lv3rSe/1csmKhP3Z/N8dvpN0xulTLIxrVRS6uAG/RP3zMp/tY cKog== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ9lC64OkpvxE6npOfPrZ2KnuTf15yepelLfE4rDyljSBc648DysfUCuX1cYXyN6b4bnRfPXfW2Z6A==@kvack.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyBouKkBQsUoP+SmE9uWj5nEqvWCTQoUc2TF+/vhBT+9Vd9Ok+s 9vMF149WFmChbDr9bJqwhbDW6cj/o79AxSDBJlRPr7iuMCIAKy9AvmNKrg5WETKkTbk= X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7ckjQxETx4HUss/8DuXfzxDWL80ZtIXfoLXw1qFgzCXvb9nDrTQafcGrMR7mlou DRUAWUdRVp676T8xQ08ZfJmwe8LS2R4Fyc2f8t5zShwNd3v9obIVGHCKFWrzAmhbzqYMRCSeP5/ 0tl3VxJ+390GuxZbxFouT6ON5/Kf299kmMHDROYlnjVdSiWwLvVRfrp7w0JygIwcbH+re4rRXTM R3r+jDgJalwYQ2PFvsZfnMz+laYzNAd3QfNf0HLMifklbtWcX4PzXfqLSUqtIeCHjOfkpT7z9g6 SIV/k4lElYHed05295QOwgjqrq/mUjY9RojOT3KVk8E6Vcy81juDudc0Qy15McCn/wAp1blWSMF b/F87l7Jabj2rlBJD8CAO5GPpOxvny8h5QL8QS3fQrxVXOJV9uc2nJBqdWOpbm2zZBVyKI/zJF+ h8nG1aEkoTV2c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5792:b0:51c:6b6:9d0b with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-51c1072cb39mr7475191cf.2.1782758860012; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2603:7001:f100:500:365a:60ff:fe62:ff29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-51c10862ecbsm2517521cf.11.2026.06.29.11.47.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:47:38 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" Cc: Andrew Morton , Zi Yan , Matthew Brost , Joshua Hahn , Rakie Kim , Byungchul Park , Gregory Price , Ying Huang , Alistair Popple , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Neha Gholkar Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: fix automatic numa balancing for shmem Message-ID: References: <20260629163337.1264881-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: zd593zn6x6ec5oaohxkjqgjpngqeke4c X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2F493160003 X-HE-Tag: 1782758861-162574 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/DB/V2x4POBkqoKUvJna+uUViv6fxSG0/kAyqzwWnsXhELOBSsVk18fbkjlTbpr7i+j7UjnYU8NQ4Gp7CkYwhHmw6HkKGvRouSc/Z1baS6vl9Yd7YDaoHOqqbPr0zBS7W6LCTNCNU/1yxvg0xCNgiBL7n93pH707CQAcwpqnxg2E/jQBdJAA67J0E4uhqP8nqdrFdnkcot5bpIrB0m5J5OzF6bbXt3PhUhhyl2JHggUp6VXAgph6FPAFe3aen3oyuDyvH07edFc0YswTOqdSODva3Tn1Hn+djBKN2CahYhXi00p4Z3BQiqNFRi4QLAGmA8b1Y5HD5NdLeGB00UasaeJ668wsaOMRiSqTJ/MamNW3PE6brHNwSOJDnFrYofLbXfEcg5RMLEbXF4BEmhxX+PyAgOjcVPD0YfaUoYcdrlSlnaujB1mm00wLXrgqaQanTkEhKL6J+9I7nN7+e/JHh/OcqYAlrkdvRQr66vGCMLhZTWDWxRMeXKlbKPViRSKToJo9YxACO47+PaiAEE0ofNX/i1LmxxE478y4KwC+XJ5DTgznwtltjRsC8YQY1tFwADd9uI9WxKERsAO+XXj0WIE6nNc6VnLUYL2z/6+qE4u4G7VlulejyueH0iOE3KussVmNiI1a+a/mqKIwwl0dEtmySiA8zWYdhUIRjDwcndKgj5cCKy8Drfa2KRaHf/qFqEGkRC7jYxP3ls9kY3RUtBrDsX7oSTjfv00hKpjtxyyOTqTVnNb6VyiqBIYQ2Sy5aAMbyaynrw4aOGULIySeu6Pispx3w/TkliSOxLwxwFgwa8vaRtG0b+IoXtLHCVS6RRCLQSByDwgHYnSUmz7Y9CPAoXargjH88S0+3i62o9F6vN7uXnuVcWA8M0fHuTDVmc59pOO/w5h0PnRgHGG0BK5BiN0V2VTz0gfuAgChheMaATjEwCT2loj705ftEsP+g8uKZy5xP UA1hcQfL 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 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 08:33:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 6/29/26 18:33, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Neha reports that mapped shmem aren't considered for NUMA balancing, > > noting convergence problems and bandwidth bottlenecking for cachelib > > based workloads on tiered memory systems. > > > > Looking at the code and going through the git history, this doesn't > > actually seem intentional: > > > > Commit fc3147245d19 ("mm: numa: Limit NUMA scanning to migrate-on-fault > > VMAs") added a vma_policy_mof() gate to task_numa_work() so VMAs whose > > policy lacks MPOL_F_MOF are skipped from NUMA balancing scans. The > > motivation was a real usecase: Oracle was pinning shared segments with > > mbind(MPOL_BIND) so trapping faults was both expensive and pointless. > > > > The handling of NULL from vm_ops->get_policy, however, treated "user > > explicitly opted out" the same as "user never specified anything." For > > VMAs whose shared policy is absent - the common case for shmem - the > > scan was disabled too. > > > > This issue is old. It probably hurts less in conventional NUMA. But it's > > very noticable on tiered systems, where entire tmpfs workingsets can get > > stuck on lower-bandwidth memory. > > Sounds bad enough to warrant CC: stable? No objection from me. I was hesitant because it's old, and while these are real workloads that see it they are hardware/kernel validation runs. OTOH it's a straight-forward bug and should backport easily. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner > > --- > > mm/mempolicy.c | 21 ++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > > index 36699fabd3c2..bba65898aee1 100644 > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > > @@ -2057,24 +2057,15 @@ struct mempolicy *get_vma_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > bool vma_policy_mof(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > > { > > struct mempolicy *pol; > > + pgoff_t ilx; > > + bool mof; > > > > - if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->get_policy) { > > - bool ret = false; > > - pgoff_t ilx; /* ignored here */ > > - > > - pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, vma->vm_start, &ilx); > > - if (pol && (pol->flags & MPOL_F_MOF)) > > - ret = true; > > - mpol_cond_put(pol); > > - > > - return ret; > > - } > > Okay, we used the fallback of vma->vm_policy before (if vma->vm_ops->get_policy > was not available), which is what __get_vma_policy() does at well. > > But if vma->vm_ops->get_policy now returns NULL, we fallback to get_task_policy(). Yep. > Makes sense to me although this is a source of confusion for me. How so? Is there anything I can improve in the changelog? > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) Thanks David!