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]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31506C369DC for ; Sun, 4 May 2025 06:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CD67C6B0089; Sun, 4 May 2025 02:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C83BC6B008C; Sun, 4 May 2025 02:16:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B756A6B0092; Sun, 4 May 2025 02:16:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973BF6B0089 for ; Sun, 4 May 2025 02:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C8514149B for ; Sun, 4 May 2025 06:16:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83404216350.09.6ECBD1D Received: from tor.source.kernel.org (tor.source.kernel.org [172.105.4.254]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB0AA0007 for ; Sun, 4 May 2025 06:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=2k9SvRWB; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 172.105.4.254 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1746339393; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dYWNM2ZUT6sYp5MMD/8wItZBVi6QXWoLDqLiIM6x4HlbPDlI9ASA+bnQobM1+K/ahU70y9 UZiQYQ5Ut+vQf2gcsVNsBZYbHgucZeHL7T4To7u0kC15vXOMqBf1tKVSr99yYKPD+XF9nT RX5NelqqS3dFTfBzOY7WNiMmazHQpW0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=2k9SvRWB; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 172.105.4.254 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1746339393; 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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=ID01Xg5V5qls4wrV6iwnMaMl5GcAA0bScStHl24eBD0=; b=nvDQus7DqvHGrgrQ9ypUTBBvpRS+iON4NiYfoJlnKL1Ap5914BEeSpYlI/H9dWSoIpxgZg oFgGQh+chpTBoLynjuOXos7jETujHStunhY8YDab100VhYkH8nYzbkfBTDB7P7y6E4d/// 60arWtMgtZ+w4EgCb5yq5EIuQJJsfig= Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A6A61129; Sun, 4 May 2025 06:16:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FFCEC4CEE7; Sun, 4 May 2025 06:16:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1746339391; bh=k1l3lNy8QfCozdRuWnbxpupvL+fhq9WSJ9NvFXGxJq8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2k9SvRWBbM2BRHMN7c8f+QuhIb1OAA0knaO4TxcwABmvf6l42VkPoqxX5v/8NhBwo eBQULqcTmlmvmBITdkzaVfpNhnT/T3V6KfzlEF6iSZ3SxRc5aLg27m9NuVllwQun4O rJom5HkumeSbtOpG+Xqq3r2JxeeOgU5rp+31yHX0= Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 23:16:31 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Oscar Salvador Cc: David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka , Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, Jonathan Cameron , Rakie Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Implement numa node notifier Message-Id: <20250503231631.7d8191e51e1d11569b529826@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20250502083624.49849-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20250503200334.3f912eeb7ca484bca4eec7fd@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3EB0AA0007 X-Stat-Signature: 9wt6cdree44ba19f4h8fzkxshxfmo9qu X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1746339393-299996 X-HE-Meta: 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 cYlxXoP7 LSRniLnWQsMeYHSaoql+Li7Wnav2wk/lp5QJWRKJNvnVgsg/JN65roafI0laz41ILGGmE/+ZlDkHiq7GNhCrq2yRiotKIuR9MivFkfWVuxEYVVAqBb5ogS7ZlXgL2ncJby0R57gd6fzZ3TCRxDzbcqYhsM8qrMLhKmxB3OQaUYz26bcI5bJazjq2b0wvrSgfwe2gXvJVFkev1+ZfBoByvhMcEN17PC0sGm2WogN1hHPH6EcsUit103//bfUUlCTKRpZGt24U5++B1tW93gwkHO8roK7E0Le7qPzbrUYq0zgj0HdvDI0cnDvYqO+nig4upCcD3 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Sun, 4 May 2025 07:44:40 +0200 Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 08:03:34PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Why is this a problem? Is there some bug? Are these notifications so > > frequent that there are significant inefficiencies here? > > hi Andrew, > > There is no bug, it is just suboptimal. > > That the numa node state changes were tied to the memory notifier was > something hacky and that have us bugged for a while now. > Were mean to tidy that up but just never got around it. > > Actually, first time I brought that up was when I reviewed the first implementation > of memory demotion (~ca 3-4 years ago now?). > > With the addition of yet another consumer (auto-weitght mempolicy) that was only > interested in get notified on numa node changes, it became more clear that we > really want to split those up. OK, please add to the [0/N]. > > Further down-thread, Gregory tells us that Dan's patch "seems to fix > > the underlying problem", but nobody (including Dan) told us about any > > "problem" at all. > > That is related to auto-weight mempolicy patches, not to this one. > I _think_ Gregory means that I take it in as part of the series. Ah, I'm glad to have company in my confusion ;)