From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com (mail-qt1-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E8B432313 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 20:56:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784753814; cv=none; b=DAkGepy/ED82GqwVeUCbYeReUUdoKDhZXZk6P61KGH+6pxG/YALHCjU2ShWQG7zHckVRb99r4UgCT2lBHeg1vGT8N9gzbe4EMOSORZobre2Ie3epE98EJawuXbQZLrT18fJMG223YvgzVbexOMhv3G9CkeOs1ErngY6U7wZg0BE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784753814; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s8/wCDafUQ7pmN88abnD2Ydl0D4cpNmsjgZZBVN4G00=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=I3G5a3i5D5MjoadszVbJdbS3p/xM/vf6rAeNGaUrYpvqiJK66SLPOSsceDEDHiV/FZrnpDOi659yvxr1+ngsxBMguz6YweI9UjTddvtTVLOoAPGtZ8HpSqeUIgQUSqUrHGuwvC/o1JW8CIBF402w+h81x6b064QQuOj34Fz8Xjo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gourry.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gourry.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gourry.net header.i=@gourry.net header.b=jZWwBXcg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gourry.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gourry.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gourry.net header.i=@gourry.net header.b="jZWwBXcg" Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-51c2149571dso79781091cf.3 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:56:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gourry.net; s=google; t=1784753811; x=1785358611; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=DrWtospFmR1X6Ml2Vs8JTWDG5C2VdzRczI8oq8UdJr8=; b=jZWwBXcg9G6il4rUhXNrnJU36Une84KAIsyCfqaVwENBE0+zG1bDOdMkDbmq1CcA+7 HwfL2FcSq0uzBac3BJHrP+9BQIs5tCYi5ixm7hoCKzg6+FCvtvvwoOjJlDfMtE+4XdW/ o9Sejiwg2chbBJyMK+Cum6nYF8qQ2oTRtkbYIvYAzyGUAgv/PmFSnZvoPFR7iuB7EIgg lyuDpSi++ngDeiy8z9x7N2n8xFkkXLsv1eqlk45qQp8Nikr36jbaqTARmDcYgxuMO4Nb Xb0r5BxD9LmTtAH2JbeDoijFRLS5hAPtmOpJxG49k7zOwy2J4pXact3paAY513Pc1e0d rpMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1784753811; x=1785358611; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type: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 :content-type; bh=DrWtospFmR1X6Ml2Vs8JTWDG5C2VdzRczI8oq8UdJr8=; b=OxXFRyxja6apTCIM14J0NdY3FDFRkC2e7J8fjeV05YAnvCLpwcFIRHh3jEid8rkIwy BgnlTA/hcDPdkRmvC8dLqPNZlEqi2VGvjHjTvYKblhlTJi9gz7F6JmUpBnfk8WNE6Kc4 jX8ObCa2IoLcWJ7jvB5dbgkKB6zljs1KEf3QCSR795/ie7t3DGPuvRWOUh6n6d5G/jEs 3j9RYVh80rSUdrIAYL0k+P9T+mr1BAyPsPPh04mFAzkXewD9b/OsKzJrZGcyawvstaNt nB82YpG/z974G4kkferY/QDn9mLF0Mphlg1sN4hXHqYxcku6O7HM/Dd+VEECtUbdhJbl YKFw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RoliqKM/17WPoMrG4flumiQjkKZ1fz3aLFN1WPv3oI2gzufWxhwn21GXRAhtC0/0r7nQMGa5mA=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzQ4lufxjohoU+mjhTY1uc1jU2P4mnKgXQ1g8JIvMztXan3/fQi h2D9A+08IbLAiSzDetTXDMLpNxnPskeL07MtHUfkenul5E/c2tjCDVXHcJCscqzUis4= X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD10jE0qEcBdlZ+j1QikxxRWmI+I596O3hl2Z1LOXHF+95ND6p8M9cvyb+o6t3Kq yiLSnwqj9AlWhAhGuwqkcrMjVi9yh6xc3pPS7Gfg1+l+ul/bhUUwKJ/7Cp5NH9f42x3k+7ujhxG 0o0HFQ2TMZ245R5Ts/rJ9eqxtr/NFR8ukm0A1JbO2hpGaD54y5sxFGkCfdZIO8gkWsH+VwX2Zr0 mJXtBNUCemn2DUYXRfcLxnYDt0fJZAhZkDX4/guYAXARJeMbZiAG95legMFb63FPT0azHb3fklN 9rG5zXwyW5d3llkr37grw6QycAKx4Y676UI71g+U6ptZ+oQqmX/UZcx9TbCtuYGsBacfTzNO43+ Kwpzbmf/eK3AVWkmQSp9JAwXrygxyRkVI1GaFdzWqG+Z9o3DEr394McXcspfyU0VzXTQZ6tdgS2 QXCIzhw+nmnT6ILF6adggqjlI31n0mYIchBUIw5hwdWjozUWhE5IAOk0kONmjaud2f6ayg X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:997:b0:519:5680:1b5 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-5283de4650emr1484841cf.21.1784753811471; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F (pool-173-79-60-52.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.60.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-907ba672806sm29772246d6.0.2026.07.22.13.56.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:56:45 -0400 From: Gregory Price To: Richard Cheng Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Zhigang.Luo@amd.com, arun.george@samsung.com, balbirs@nvidia.com, brendan.jackman@linux.dev, yuzenghui@huawei.com, apopple@nvidia.com, alucerop@amd.com, matthew.brost@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, liam@infradead.org, vbabka@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, corbet@lwn.net, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, dakr@kernel.org, djbw@kernel.org, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, dave.jiang@intel.com, alison.schofield@intel.com, osandov@osandov.com, jannh@google.com, pfalcato@suse.de, jackmanb@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, ziy@nvidia.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, osalvador@suse.de, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, rakie.kim@sk.com, byungchul@sk.com, ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, kasong@tencent.com, qi.zheng@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, baohua@kernel.org, axelrasmussen@google.com, yuanchu@google.com, weixugc@google.com, yury.norov@gmail.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, longman@redhat.com, ridong.chen@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org, mkoutny@suse.com, sj@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, jhubbard@nvidia.com, peterx@redhat.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, npache@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, lance.yang@linux.dev, usama.arif@linux.dev, xu.xin16@zte.com.cn, chengming.zhou@linux.dev, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, driver-core@lists.linux.dev, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-debuggers@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/36] Private Memory NUMA Nodes Message-ID: References: <20260720193431.3841992-1-gourry@gourry.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 11:40:06AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 10:20:00PM +0800, Richard Cheng wrote: > > > > I saw the reply in patch 5, so in fact there's not only one > > dedicate zonelist, but numerous ? > > I raise the question because zonelist was supposed to be a > > global, unbypasssable thing in MM design, but now what you > > are trying to do is to seperate the whole global list into several > > parts ? > > > > Can you explain why in current design you don't consider to support > > something like ZONELIST_PRIVATE[n]={0, .. ,n-1} ? that's my imagination > > of what a global zonelist should look like, no matter private or non. > > > > First let me say that there's nothing that prevents us from doing this, > and we *could* make this the default case - but this decision was > intentional by me. > You caught me on something here - I am wrong about my own code. I described to you how I originally implemented zonelist isolation, which I walked back when I was testing mempolicy and demotion. The current code and the comments in the code are correct, we get the following zonelists. N_MEMORY : 0,1 N_MEMORY_PRIVATE: 2,3 ZONELIST_PRIVATE[0] = {0,1,2,3} ZONELIST_PRIVATE[1] = {1,0,2,3} ZONELIST_PRIVATE[2] = {2,0,1,3} ZONELIST_PRIVATE[3] = {3,0,1,2} Meaning everything except for MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES works (because of cpuset isolation, but more on this in a moment). So what I shipped here is what you are describing. Looking back at my notes - I realized a few things that lead me to walk back that isolation: 1) mempolicy makes more sense this way. 2) reclaim/demotion is easier to implement without isolation. 3) The individual service checks and nodelists handle the rest. 4) It overally just makes more sense. If something breaks isolation it's because there's a bug, not because of a structural issue. For example in demotion we do this: demote_folio_list(): /* Get demotion targets, find the best one, and demote */ node_get_allowed_targets(pgdat, &allowed_mask); target_nid = next_demotion_node(pgdat->node_id, &allowed_mask); migrate_pages(demote_folios, alloc_demote_folio, ...); Where the first step already filters on CAP_DEMOTION. The result is still clean - no special iterators needed. What I realized from your questions here is that since i walked back the zonelist isolation, I think i can actually include any CAP_USER_NUMA node in cpuset.mems and allow parititioning fairly trivially. I think this might be the last majority complexity falling out. Thank you for the questions - this has helped. ~Gregory