Messages in this thread | | | From | Zi Yan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V10 2/9] mm/migrate: update node demotion order on hotplug events | Date | Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:00:49 -0400 |
| |
On 15 Jul 2021, at 1:51, Huang Ying wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > > Reclaim-based migration is attempting to optimize data placement in > memory based on the system topology. If the system changes, so must > the migration ordering. > > The implementation is conceptually simple and entirely unoptimized. > On any memory or CPU hotplug events, assume that a node was added or > removed and recalculate all migration targets. This ensures that the > node_demotion[] array is always ready to be used in case the new > reclaim mode is enabled. > > This recalculation is far from optimal, most glaringly that it does > not even attempt to figure out the hotplug event would have some > *actual* effect on the demotion order. But, given the expected > paucity of hotplug events, this should be fine. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> > Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> > Cc: osalvador <osalvador@suse.de> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > > -- > > Changes since 20210618: > * moved RCU part to the prev patch in series. > > Changes since 20210302: > * remove duplicate synchronize_rcu() > --- > mm/migrate.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
LGTM. Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
— Best Regards, Yan, Zi [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |