[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [1]   [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 Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>On Tue 16-04-19 12:19:21, Yang Shi wrote:
>> On 4/16/19 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > Why cannot we simply demote in the proximity order? Why do you make
>> > cpuless nodes so special? If other close nodes are vacant then just use
>> > them.
>> We could. But, this raises another question, would we prefer to just demote
>> to the next fallback node (just try once), if it is contended, then just
>> swap (i.e. DRAM0 -> PMEM0 -> Swap); or 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)?
>I would go with the later. Why, because it is more natural. Because that
>is the natural allocation path so I do not see why this shouldn't be the
>natural demotion path.

"Demotion" should be more performance wise by "demoting to the
next-level (cheaper/slower) memory". Otherwise something like this
may happen.

DRAM0 pressured => demote cold pages to DRAM1
DRAM1 pressured => demote cold pages to DRAM0

Kind of DRAM0/DRAM1 exchanged a fraction of the demoted cold pages,
which looks not helpful for overall system performance.

Over time, it's even possible some cold pages get "demoted" in path


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-01 08:46    [W:0.223 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site