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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB916C282DD for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:02:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A838821850 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:02:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1555578152; bh=UE4W7VKVVwEGwQTcBVy4w09bSvdkMTQUcCa4i1tBaBc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=AODOIAwYIPSINB+Bl3Pf4fcdZq0XFBPFE1baMflzUyPJsWPlD1AYkbuVzIARbEF71 oAZcS45/OjqdEIEDWbcpXXTzhL/gb9GLR/77mnxJSLP+npt33n96YQmyeK0qWFKqK4 9NNlNKxJ3tQlr3GHK6IjfgOZsXot8izZIIpl0r6k= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388367AbfDRJCb (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:02:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46622 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388036AbfDRJCa (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 05:02:30 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE47AEBB; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:02:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:02:27 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Yang Shi Cc: mgorman@techsingularity.net, riel@surriel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@intel.com, keith.busch@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, fan.du@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, ziy@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node Message-ID: <20190418090227.GG6567@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1554955019-29472-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190412084702.GD13373@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190416074714.GD11561@dhcp22.suse.cz> <876768ad-a63a-99c3-59de-458403f008c4@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 17-04-19 13:43:44, Yang Shi wrote: [...] > And, I'm wondering whether this optimization is also suitable to general > NUMA balancing or not. If there are convincing numbers then this should be a preferable way to deal with it. Please note that the number of promotions is not the only metric to watch. The overal performance/access latency would be another one. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs