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 mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B0DC433EF for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 06:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA606134F for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 06:37:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 3DA606134F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D811C6B0082; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D31336B0083; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:37:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C20966B0085; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:37:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.38]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B9C6B0082 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F11183D2A1A for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 06:37:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78784807752.28.063820C Received: from out30-57.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-57.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.57]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C514CB0001AB for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 06:37:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R941e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04423;MF=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=9;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UvUeztB_1636353469; Received: from 30.21.164.45(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UvUeztB_1636353469) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Mon, 08 Nov 2021 14:37:50 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: migrate: Add new node demotion strategy To: Dave Hansen , "Huang, Ying" Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, ziy@nvidia.com, osalvador@suse.de, shy828301@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <665cb882-6dbc-335f-1435-e52659d7ee58@intel.com> <87tugrxqks.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <240c5997-ab7e-8045-dacc-1afdb7c49a0d@linux.alibaba.com> From: Baolin Wang Message-ID: <9271f9d7-e251-9ed4-2126-8debb3395891@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:38:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C514CB0001AB X-Stat-Signature: eu6uz97kggefktgatbp7a6z4xbpk3o3o Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=alibaba.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com designates 115.124.30.57 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com X-HE-Tag: 1636353466-727421 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: On 2021/11/7 23:20, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 11/7/21 1:33 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Thanks for your suggestion. After some thinking, can we change the >> node_demotion[] structure like below? Which means one source node can = be >> demoted to mutiple target node, and we can set up the target node mask >> according to the node distance. How do you think? Thanks. >> >> static nodemask_t node_demotion[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly =3D >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 {[0 ...=A0 MAX_NUMNODES - 1] =3D NODE_MASK_NONE= }; >=20 > How large is that in the worst case? For the worst case (MAX_NUMNODES=3D1024), the size of the node_demotion i= s=20 131072 bytes, while the size of original data structure is 4096 bytes.=20 Maybe we can allocate the node_demotion dynamically?