Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/8] Migrate Pages in lieu of discard

[Dave Hansen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 7/1/20 7:24 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:31, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> BTW is this proposal only for systems having multi-tiers of
>>> memory? Can a multi-node DRAM-only system take advantage of
>>> this proposal? For example I have a system with two DRAM nodes
>>> running two jobs hardwalled to each node. For each job the
>>> other node is kind of low-tier memory. If I can describe the
>>> per-job demotion paths then these jobs can take advantage of
>>> this proposal during occasional peaks.
>> I don't see any reason it could not work there.  There would just
>> need to be a way to set up a different demotion path policy that
>> what was done here.
> We might need a different threshold (or GFP flag) for allocating
> new pages in remote node for demotion. Otherwise, we could see
> scenarios like: two nodes in a system are almost full and Node A
> is trying to demote some pages to Node B, which triggers page
> demotion from Node B to Node A.

I've always assumed that migration cycles would be illegal since it's
so hard to guarantee forward reclaim progress with them in place.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJe/J5kAAoJEGg1lTBwyZKw0TMP/1kufbxVGSY331xhOL/QHEoE
Tsuo62l2CJ/CbhIBKzac24k1Rf9AiyxUukkVZfa32c2Kf03XWjUNiWVuRPSTMlfT
E0h2llYYbUBs+eVeT4Ksz4xkThKHlXPNuS1OMhuSVbjhieiPqp3J0blohXaWdkSa
DBgpiqNlVPD7V0NIA5qfsumZRrOJDdJNdLKbjI7GBVprEHu5N/X0NQpakPErtcka
kSz7Hjv5x+fbd3rxc2QhrnegBE1oMQGUl14nf/kIKnKuZV2WIdabaxrYWrQBvALa
Z2sfcBRU41/SKvz/syCwJpSr1XkfsjNKvDMlkflXndMTzzP4/rhAyDX5Wzw99Aws
zz6UmRhZrFOudq4R5jpOqJiDfn1RGYA8mH04bEOPjEgGRiXaxi5Sp6fh/BQG5p7n
QESH0LVHEhg8h+10FWZ5VYU1UwMIdzolBI8Y8VlJDjeSpzSFyyDFP7Re3OyQRfmb
ij5ThSozo35t+zEYS4yofgPMZKJ/aZ+EySEF5LZsipKC2RsRuFFpaDSOOGXZKLXq
G/R9g2LeLZK6iNNlCrIGjeAAKN8UZzOMJwapYV8czt0HTQ2vRjuDE1Y2TRD6gjXI
x6vUCfFyOEJw4l3mca+Sb1pmFcaiXBRxBrat6q23Ls+eCDMIaTgx5wA7NEeq0Td7
yShQbtIvJKRubiscJlZ/
=MjgB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----