lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/10] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node
On Tue 26-03-19 11:33:17, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
> On 3/26/19 6:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 23-03-19 12:44:25, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > With Dave Hansen's patches merged into Linus's tree
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c221c0b0308fd01d9fb33a16f64d2fd95f8830a4
> > >
> > > PMEM could be hot plugged as NUMA node now. But, how to use PMEM as NUMA node
> > > effectively and efficiently is still a question.
> > >
> > > There have been a couple of proposals posted on the mailing list [1] [2].
> > >
> > > The patchset is aimed to try a different approach from this proposal [1]
> > > to use PMEM as NUMA nodes.
> > >
> > > The approach is designed to follow the below principles:
> > >
> > > 1. Use PMEM as normal NUMA node, no special gfp flag, zone, zonelist, etc.
> > >
> > > 2. DRAM first/by default. No surprise to existing applications and default
> > > running. PMEM will not be allocated unless its node is specified explicitly
> > > by NUMA policy. Some applications may be not very sensitive to memory latency,
> > > so they could be placed on PMEM nodes then have hot pages promote to DRAM
> > > gradually.
> > Why are you pushing yourself into the corner right at the beginning? If
> > the PMEM is exported as a regular NUMA node then the only difference
> > should be performance characteristics (module durability which shouldn't
> > play any role in this particular case, right?). Applications which are
> > already sensitive to memory access should better use proper binding already.
> > Some NUMA topologies might have quite a large interconnect penalties
> > already. So this doesn't sound like an argument to me, TBH.
>
> The major rationale behind this is we assume the most applications should be
> sensitive to memory access, particularly for meeting the SLA. The
> applications run on the machine may be agnostic to us, they may be sensitive
> or non-sensitive. But, assuming they are sensitive to memory access sounds
> safer from SLA point of view. Then the "cold" pages could be demoted to PMEM
> nodes by kernel's memory reclaim or other tools without impairing the SLA.
>
> If the applications are not sensitive to memory access, they could be bound
> to PMEM or allowed to use PMEM (nice to have allocation on DRAM) explicitly,
> then the "hot" pages could be promoted to DRAM.

Again, how is this different from NUMA in general?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-26 19:38    [W:0.063 / U:11.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site