mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
To: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
Cc: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>,
	 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, ljs@kernel.org, liam@infradead.org,
	 rppt@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	skhan@linuxfoundation.org,  ziy@nvidia.com,
	ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
	 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/numa_balancing: allow migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE policy
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 10:50:27 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar0fURbLDPrphYMY@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e3f12b7-0dac-428c-b70b-07e1f63de028@bytedance.com>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 10:02:23PM +0800, Li Zhe wrote:
> The use case is closer to the second one, but the main motivation is not
> only startup-time performance.  The more important point is that each
> workload has its own DDR/CXL budget assigned by the workload manager.
> 

mempolicy is the wrong interface to do budget policy, you'd be better
off looking at Joshua's memcg tiered node solutions for that.

> MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE is useful because it lets new allocations
> follow that per-workload budget from the beginning, instead of placing
> everything on one tier first and correcting the placement later. This is
> important for workload orchestration because the workload starts from a
> placement close to its assigned DDR/CXL ratio.
> 

This however is reasonable to me - you'd prefer to spread out the cost
of initial faulting placement explicitly, rather than simply take
fallbacks when the top-tier budget becomes pressured.

i.e. w/o interleave:

[node 0       ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ alloc until full
                vvvvvvvvv fallback
                [node 1          ]

in this scenario you end up with considerable hot memory
on the remote node consolidated in time-space (everything
allocated after node0 becomes full skews heavily toward
node1)

Tiering then likely takes many faults to rebalance after
you've already reached node0 limits.

w/ interleave

[node 0                                      ]
 ^^^vv^^^vv^^^vv^^^vv^^^vv^^^vv....
[node 1                                      ]

In this scenario you do an initial fill distributed by weight
and then let tiering figure it out without consolidating all
of the pressure to the point where node0 has no space left.

That said - this seems like mostly an initial-fill problem, after
you initially fill your memory, a new allocation largely implies
the memory is hot - and you probably prefer that to be local.

So while it's possible to enable this, I'm struggling to understand
the justification.  I think I would like to see numbers that demonstrate
that this is actually beneficial over the life of a workload.

~Gregory

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-30 14:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-30  7:26 Li Zhe
2026-09-30  8:43 ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30  8:59   ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30  9:11     ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 10:59       ` Joshua Hahn
2026-09-30 11:22       ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 12:25         ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 11:26 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-30 11:52   ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 12:11     ` Joshua Hahn
2026-09-30 14:02       ` Li Zhe
2026-09-30 14:50         ` Gregory Price [this message]
2026-09-30 15:10           ` Zi Yan
2026-09-30 12:03   ` Gregory Price
2026-09-30 12:32     ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-30 13:40       ` Gregory Price

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=ar0fURbLDPrphYMY@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F \
    --to=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®