From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
<dan.j.williams@intel.com>, <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] mm/mempolicy: introduce system default interleave weights
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:59:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a5nme9c1.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zd10+G4XIrPoojJE@memverge.com> (Gregory Price's message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:36:56 -0500")
Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:38:19AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com> writes:
>> > Where are the 100 nodes coming from?
>>
>> If you have a real large machine with more than 100 nodes, and some of
>> them are CXL memory nodes, then it's possible that most nodes will have
>> interleave weight "1" because the sum of all interleave weights is
>> "100". Then, even if you use only one socket, the interleave weight of
>> DRAM and CXL MEM could be all "1", lead to useless default value. So, I
>> suggest don't cap the sum of interleave weights.
>
> I have to press this issue: Is this an actual, practical, concern?
I don't know who have large machine like that. But I guess that it's
possible in the long run.
> It seems to me in this type of scenario, there are larger, more complex
> numa topology issues that make the use of the general, global weighted
> mempolicy system entirely impractical. This is a bit outside the scope
It's possible to solve the problem step by step. For example, add
per-task interleave weight at some time.
>> > So, long winded winded way of saying:
>> > - Could we use a larger default number? Yes.
>> > - Does that actually help us? Not really, we want smaller numbers.
>>
>> The larger number will be reduced after GCD.
>>
>
> I suppose another strategy is to calculate the interleave weights
> un-bounded from the raw bandwidth - but continuously force reductions
> (through some yet-undefined algorithm) until at least one node reaches a
> weight of `1`. This suffers from the opposite problem: what if the top
> node has a value greater than 255? Do we just cap it at 255? That seems
> the opposite form of problematic.
>
> (Large numbers are quite pointless, as it is essentially the antithesis
> of interleave)
Yes. So I suggest to use a relative small number as the default weight
to start with for normal DRAM. We will have to floor/ceiling the weight
value.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 6:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-20 20:25 [RCF 0/1] mm/mempolicy: weighted interleave system default weights Gregory Price
2024-02-20 20:25 ` [RFC 1/1] mm/mempolicy: introduce system default interleave weights Gregory Price
2024-02-22 7:10 ` Huang, Ying
2024-02-23 5:47 ` Gregory Price
2024-02-23 9:11 ` Huang, Ying
2024-02-26 14:29 ` Gregory Price
2024-02-27 0:38 ` Huang, Ying
2024-02-27 5:36 ` Gregory Price
2024-02-27 5:59 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2024-02-27 6:11 ` Gregory Price
2024-02-27 8:24 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87a5nme9c1.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=gourry.memverge@gmail.com \
--cc=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox