Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node
From: Keith Busch
Date: Wed Apr 17 2019 - 11:20:06 EST
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 04:17:44PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> On 4/16/19 4:04 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 4/16/19 2:59 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On 4/16/19 2:22 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > In Keith's code, I don't think we differentiated. We let any node
> > demote to any other node you want, as long as it follows the cycle rule.
> I recall Keith's code let the userspace define the target node.
Right, you have to opt-in in my original proposal since it may be a
bit presumptuous of the kernel to decide how a node's memory is going
to be used. User applications have other intentions for it.
It wouldn't be too difficult to make HMAT to create a reasonable initial
migration graph too, and that can also make that an opt-in user choice.
> Anyway, we may need add one rule: not migrate-on-reclaim from PMEM
> node. Demoting from PMEM to DRAM sounds pointless.
I really don't think we should be making such hard rules on PMEM. It
makes more sense to consider performance and locality for migration
rules than on a persistence attribute.