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 A6D5FC433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:23:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 270186B0082; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 01:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 220166B0083; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 01:19:10 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0E81F6B0085; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 01:19:10 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay028.a.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.28]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38816B0082 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 01:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix, from userid 108) id 1264420680; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 06:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix, from userid 108) id 2272420735; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 05:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix, from userid 108) id 997AD2098A; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 02:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3429209FD for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78893012646.14.5198980 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5436F3000100 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 02:16:22 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10191"; a="261812020" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,296,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="261812020" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2021 18:16:20 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,296,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="462586499" Received: from yhuang6-desk2.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com) ([10.239.159.50]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2021 18:16:16 -0800 From: "Huang, Ying" To: Hasan Al Maruf Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, hasanalmaruf@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, mgorman@techsingularity.net, mhocko@suse.com, osalvador@suse.de, peterz@infradead.org, riel@surriel.com, shakeelb@google.com, shy828301@gmail.com, weixugc@google.com, ziy@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -V10 RESEND 1/6] NUMA Balancing: add page promotion counter References: <20211207022757.2523359-2-ying.huang@intel.com> <20211207060509.79442-1-hasanalmaruf@fb.com> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 10:16:14 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20211207060509.79442-1-hasanalmaruf@fb.com> (Hasan Al Maruf's message of "Tue, 7 Dec 2021 01:05:09 -0500") Message-ID: <871r2n4z9t.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5436F3000100 X-Stat-Signature: 9xgfw8qieoz97ofria6wrau9cs5jt48k Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.88) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none) X-HE-Tag: 1638929782-954941 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: Hasan Al Maruf writes: > Hi Huang, > >>+#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING >>+ PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, /* promote successfully */ > > I find a breakdown of Anon and File page promotion can often be useful to > understand an application's behavior (i.e. what kind of pages are moved to > remote node and later being promoted). What do you think about adding > counters for such a breakdown? > > What's your thought on adding counters for failures on different reasons? I think that all these provide helpful information. But I think that we can add them in separate patches. That will make reviewing simpler. Best Regards, Huang, Ying