[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
On 16 Apr 2019, at 10:30, Dave Hansen wrote:

> On 4/16/19 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> You definitely have to follow policy. You cannot demote to a node which
>> is outside of the cpuset/mempolicy because you are breaking contract
>> expected by the userspace. That implies doing a rmap walk.
> What *is* the contract with userspace, anyway? :)
> Obviously, the preferred policy doesn't have any strict contract.
> The strict binding has a bit more of a contract, but it doesn't prevent
> swapping. Strict binding also doesn't keep another app from moving the
> memory.
> We have a reasonable argument that demotion is better than swapping.
> So, we could say that even if a VMA has a strict NUMA policy, demoting
> pages mapped there pages still beats swapping them or tossing the page
> cache. It's doing them a favor to demote them.

I just wonder whether page migration is always better than swapping,
since SSD write throughput keeps improving but page migration throughput
is still low. For example, my machine has a SSD with 2GB/s writing throughput
but the throughput of 4KB page migration is less than 1GB/s, why do we
want to use page migration for demotion instead of swapping?

Best Regards,
Yan Zi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-16 17:34    [W:0.143 / U:1.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site