Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mm/mprotect: Remove NUMA_HUGE_PTE_UPDATES

David Hildenbrand
2024-08-06T16:32:24Z

On 06.08.24 18:26, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 03:02:00PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> I don't have a reason to change numa_pte_updates semantics yet so far, but
>>> here there's the problem where numa_huge_pte_updates can be ambiguous when
>>> there is even PUD involved.
>>>
>>> In general, I don't know how I should treat this counter in PUD path even
>>> if NUMA isn't involved in dax yet; it can be soon involved if we move on
>>> with using this same path for hugetlb, or when 1G thp can be possible (with
>>> Yu Zhao's TAO?).
>>
>> We shouldn't bother about it in the PUD path at all I think. Especially as
>> long as NUMA hinting doesn't apply to any of what we would handle on the PUD
>> path :)
>
> Hmm, I just noticed that hugetlb was never involved.. but then how about a
> potential 1G THP? Do you mean 1G THP will not be accounted in numa
> balancing too even in the future?

My best guess is that you would want a separate counter for that. The
old one was just badly named ...

72403b4a0fbd even spells out "NUMA huge PMD updates".

"NUMA huge PMD updates were the number of THP updates which in
combination can be used to calculate how many ptes were updated from
userspace."

... which doesn't make sense if you don't know how "huge" the huge
actually was. :)

>
> The motivation I had this patch in this series is I want to be clear on how
> I should treat this counter in pud path if it won't go. And when people
> compare the two paths we'll need to be clear why there's such difference if
> I ignore it in pud path.
>
> Per my current read on this counter, it might be an overkill to do that at
> all, and it might be simpler we drop it now.

Fine with me. But I would send that out separately, not buried in this
series. The we might actually get Mel to review (was he CCed?).

Up to you!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb