lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node
From
Date


On 4/16/19 2:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/16/19 12:19 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>> would we prefer to try all the nodes in the fallback order to find the
>> first less contended one (i.e. DRAM0 -> PMEM0 -> DRAM1 -> PMEM1 -> Swap)?
> Once a page went to DRAM1, how would we tell that it originated in DRAM0
> and is following the DRAM0 path rather than the DRAM1 path?
>
> Memory on DRAM0's path would be:
>
> DRAM0 -> PMEM0 -> DRAM1 -> PMEM1 -> Swap
>
> Memory on DRAM1's path would be:
>
> DRAM1 -> PMEM1 -> DRAM0 -> PMEM0 -> Swap
>
> Keith Busch had a set of patches to let you specify the demotion order
> via sysfs for fun. The rules we came up with were:
> 1. Pages keep no history of where they have been
> 2. Each node can only demote to one other node

Does this mean any remote node? Or just DRAM to PMEM, but remote PMEM
might be ok?

> 3. The demotion path can not have cycles

I agree with these rules, actually my implementation does imply the
similar rule. I tried to understand what Michal means. My current
implementation expects to have demotion happen from the initiator to the
target in the same local pair. But, Michal may expect to be able to
demote to remote initiator or target if the local target is contended.

IMHO, demotion in the local pair makes things much simpler.

>
> That ensures that we *can't* follow the paths you described above, if we
> follow those rules...

Yes, it might create a circle.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-16 23:59    [W:0.235 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site