From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C432D5937 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 01:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775698151; cv=none; b=e5Z+h+l0uAgDqu/RVzT6TapDCWZCN3aAvDoPDs+kiQMNrW3TD1P3Ga6+R3mAs5FvgLUIl5wZe1F7hhWpLXOz7JrqyQeK+gS0/jr6UzWQUpJlm4UysQ1aBVVa1gRDK+jyAoDT3czyc5beP/XqZHHAFpKQiEfijMx+5jlcdLUpaA0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775698151; c=relaxed/simple; bh=asY0lhTWJVOlxJq8yVspZc9c02qbb7Oe8S8SnUXA0oE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A/Bd9UmgTIeEEztTrf8p/K2zwss+2ZhbZ8cnWuPTPsr7evWsYpqE7yanCsmuL5DJYkjEdutaO1jLqnI9XUQnjdoDdRbjsdRGhwOeFHnsKN8SIdeNbOskyZ1UzWb/jGMxPHZvlSWcQ8DLQWnJjWsvpkjNHjFRjX7k5X+I6iGrw5w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=cJ7YNceZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="cJ7YNceZ" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1775698146; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=6DpAhVDfr8Quok6ciQMR/TnrA+KAslBk5pzeRLG23+s=; b=cJ7YNceZXUMDijX2zwm582NkHQ5zEEh+mfRoWssKr4OQnGE0ZlHvBAiLb/H3vStf4y1yAfQL1kFWgc4PJYSoWv4ctwnS7reUsqBhO/opeBIjRwXgo6CMUtqmOcrA6LhJiRrA106D1ZZdcbLEfihe91AmNS8Ty5bUcMHrgom2wAQ= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R151e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033037033178;MF=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=12;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0X0gT4kj_1775698136; Received: from DESKTOP-5N7EMDA(mailfrom:ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0X0gT4kj_1775698136 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 09:29:05 +0800 From: "Huang, Ying" To: Donet Tom Cc: David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Ritesh Harjani , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Baolin Wang , Ying Huang , Juri Lelli , Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory tiering: Do not allow promotion if NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled In-Reply-To: (Donet Tom's message of "Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:50:28 +0530") References: <20260323094849.3903-1-donettom@linux.ibm.com> <87wlyqt52m.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> <87o6k1ubg4.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 09:28:59 +0800 Message-ID: <877bqgvs4k.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Donet Tom writes: > On 4/2/26 11:54 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Donet Tom writes: >> >>> Hi >> Hi, Donet, >> >>> On 4/2/26 8:57 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>> Donet Tom writes: >>>> >>>>> In the current implementation, if NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is >>>>> disabled and the pages are on the lower tier, the pages may still be >>>>> promoted. >>>>> >>>>> This happens because task_numa_work() updates the last_cpupid field to >>>>> record the last access time only when NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is >>>>> enabled and the folio is on the lower tier. If >>>>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled, the last_cpupid field >>>>> can retains a valid last CPU id. >>>>> >>>>> In should_numa_migrate_memory(), the decision checks whether >>>>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled, the folio is on the lower >>>>> tier, and last_cpupid is invalid. However, the last_cpupid can be >>>>> valid when NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled, the condition >>>>> evaluates to false and migration is allowed. >>>>> >>>>> This patch prevents promotion when NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is >>>>> disabled and the folio is on the lower tier. >>>>> >>>>> Behavior before this change: >>>>> ============================ >>>>> - If NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL is enabled, migration occurs between >>>>> nodes within the same memory tier, and promotion from lower >>>>> tier to higher tier may also happen. >>>>> >>>>> - If NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is enabled, promotion from >>>>> lower tier to higher tier nodes is allowed. >>>>> >>>>> Behavior after this change: >>>>> =========================== >>>>> - If NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL is enabled, migration will occur only >>>>> between nodes within the same memory tier. >>>>> >>>>> - If NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is enabled, promotion from lower >>>>> tier to higher tier nodes will be allowed. >>>>> >>>>> - If both NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING and NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL are >>>>> enabled, both migration (same tier) and promotion (cross tier) are >>>>> allowed. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Donet Tom >>>>> --- >>>>> v1 -> v2 >>>>> ======== >>>>> 1. Dropped changes in task_numa_fault() since the original changes >>>>> already handle runtime disabling of NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING. >>>>> >>>>> v1 -> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260320092251.1290207-1-donettom@linux.ibm.com/ >>>>> --- >>>>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >>>>> index bf948db905ed..4b43809a3fb1 100644 >>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >>>>> @@ -2024,8 +2024,12 @@ bool should_numa_migrate_memory(struct task_struct *p, struct folio *folio, >>>>> this_cpupid = cpu_pid_to_cpupid(dst_cpu, current->pid); >>>>> last_cpupid = folio_xchg_last_cpupid(folio, this_cpupid); >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Do not allow promotion if NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled >>>>> + * and the pages are on the lower tier. >>>>> + */ >>>>> if (!(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) && >>>>> - !node_is_toptier(src_nid) && !cpupid_valid(last_cpupid)) >>>>> + !node_is_toptier(src_nid)) >>>>> return false; >>>>> /* >>>> No. Even if NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is disabled, we should still >>>> allow migrate pages from lower tier to higher tier via >>>> NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL. If we have precious DDR, why waste it? This >>>> follows the semantics of NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL before introducing >>>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING. >>> Thank you for the review comments. >>> >>> One thing I am trying to understand is that page promotion >>> appears to happen regardless of whether >>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is enabled or disabled. In that >>> case, what is the specific role of >>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING? Do we get better performance >>> when it is enabled? >> You can search NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING to find out what it does. >> We can get better performance as the original commit message says. >> >> When NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is introduced, we didn't change the >> original behavior of NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_NORMAL because we had no good >> reason to do that. In fact, you change its behavior, so you should >> provide some supporting data or bug report to justify the change. >> >>> My initial understanding was that disabling >>> NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING could be used to turn off >>> promotion. However, it seems that currently we cannot control >>> promotion independently. If NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL is disabled, >>> neither migration nor promotion happens, and if it is enabled, >>> both migration and promotion can occur. >>> >>> I was under the impression that: >>> - NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL would handle migration within the same tier, >>> - NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING would handle promotion across tiers, >>> - and enabling both would allow both migration and promotion. >>> >>> This would provide more fine-grained control. Is my >>> understanding correct, or am I missing something here? >> You can change this, if you have some supporting data or bug report. > > > Thanks for the clarification. I was running some experiments where I > only required migration, not promotion. However, I observed that > promotion was still occurring even when NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING > was disabled, which led me to believe it might be a bug, so I reported > it. > > As I understand it, enabling both NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING and > NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL results in both promotion and migration. Given > this, do you see any concerns with modifying the behavior of > NUMA_BALANCING_NORMAL? > > With this patch, we would have better control over enabling and > disabling promotion independently. I would appreciate your thoughts on > this. IIUC, we change the existing user visible behavior only with strong enough practical reason. If so, making something conceptually better isn't enough for that. --- Best Regards, Huang, Ying