lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/8] mm/gup: reintroduce FOLL_NUMA as FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT
From
On 01.08.23 17:48, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:48:37PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> @@ -2240,6 +2244,12 @@ static bool is_valid_gup_args(struct page **pages, int *locked,
>> gup_flags |= FOLL_UNLOCKABLE;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * For now, always trigger NUMA hinting faults. Some GUP users like
>> + * KVM really require it to benefit from autonuma.
>> + */
>> + gup_flags |= FOLL_HONOR_NUMA_FAULT;
>
> Since at it, do we want to not set it for FOLL_REMOTE, which still sounds
> like a good thing to have?

I thought about that, but decided against making that patch here more
complicated to eventually rip it again all out in #4.

I fully agree that FOLL_REMOTE does not make too much sense, but let's
rather keep it simple for this patch.


Thanks!

>
> Other than that, looks good here.
>
> Side note: when I was looking at the flags again just to check the
> interactions over numa balancing, I found FOLL_NOFAULT and I highly suspect
> that's not needed, instead it just wants to use follow_page[_mask]() with
> some proper gup flags passed over.. but that's off topic.

Be prepared for my proposal of removing foll_flags from follow_page() ;)

(accompanied by a proper documentation)

Especially as we have FOLL_PIN users of FOLL_NOFAULT, follow_page() is a
bad fit.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-01 18:17    [W:0.109 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site