Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] sbitmap: NUMA node spreading

[John Garry]

On 11/05/2022 03:07, Ming Lei wrote:

Hi Ming,

> > > Spreading the memory out does probably make sense, but we need to retain
> > > the fast normal case. Making sbitmap support both, selected at init
> > > time, would be far more likely to be acceptable imho.
> > I wanted to keep the code changes minimal for an initial RFC to test the
> > water.
> >
> > My original approach did not introduce the extra load for normal path and
> > had some init time selection for a normal word map vs numa word map, but the
> > code grew and became somewhat unmanageable. I'll revisit it to see how to
> > improve that.
> I understand this approach just splits shared sbitmap into per-numa-node
> part, but what if all IOs are just from CPUs in one same numa node? Doesn't
> this way cause tag starvation and waste?

We would not do this. If we can't find a free bit in one node then we 
need to check the others before giving up. This is some of the added 
complexity which I hinted at. And things like batch get or RR support 
become more complex.

Alternatively we could have the double pointer for numa spreading only, 
which would make things simpler. I need to check which is overall 
better. Adding the complexity for dealing with numa node sub-arrays may 
affect performance also.

Thanks,
John