From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3979E6B0035 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l6so888872qcy.39 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:24]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d5si3928466qar.108.2014.07.11.08.56.12 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:55:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC Patch V1 07/30] mm: Use cpu_to_mem()/numa_mem_id() to support memoryless node In-Reply-To: <20140711153302.GA30865@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: References: <1405064267-11678-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <1405064267-11678-8-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <20140711144205.GA27706@htj.dyndns.org> <20140711152156.GB29137@htj.dyndns.org> <20140711153302.GA30865@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jiang Liu , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Rik van Riel , Wanpeng Li , Zhang Yanfei , Catalin Marinas , Jianyu Zhan , malc , Joonsoo Kim , Fabian Frederick , Tony Luck , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:21:56AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Even if that's the case, there's no reason to burden everyone with > > this distinction. Most users just wanna say "I'm on this node. > > Please allocate considering that". There's nothing wrong with using > > numa_node_id() for that. > > Also, this is minor but don't we also lose fallback information by > doing this from the caller? Please consider the following topology > where each hop is the same distance. > > A - B - X - C - D > > Where X is the memless node. num_mem_id() on X would return either B > or C, right? If B or C can't satisfy the allocation, the allocator > would fallback to A from B and D for C, both of which aren't optimal. > It should first fall back to C or B respectively, which the allocator > can't do anymoe because the information is lost when the caller side > performs numa_mem_id(). True but the advantage is that the numa_mem_id() allows the use of a consitent sort of "local" node which increases allocator performance due to the abillity to cache objects from that node. > Seems pretty misguided to me. IMHO the whole concept of a memoryless node looks pretty misguided to me. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org