To make it possible to optimize cross-socket memory accessing with
AutoNUMA even if the memory of the application is bound to multiple
NUMA nodes.
Patch [2/3] and [3/3] are NOT kernel patches. Instead, they are
patches for man-pages and numactl respectively. They are sent
together to make it easy to review the newly added kernel API.
Changes:
v6:
- Rebased on latest upstream kernel 5.10-rc5
- Added some benchmark data and example in patch description of [1/3]
- Rename AutoNUMA to NUMA Balancing
- Add patches to man-pages [2/3] and numactl [3/3]
v5:
- Remove mbind() support, because it's not clear that it's necessary.
v4:
- Use new flags instead of reuse MPOL_MF_LAZY.
v3:
- Rebased on latest upstream (v5.10-rc3)
- Revised the change log.
v2:
- Rebased on latest upstream (v5.10-rc1)
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
---
man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
--- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
+++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
@@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
.I nodemask
specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
+.TP
+.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
+Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
+by kernel.
+If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is
+set to EINVAL.
.PP
.I nodemask
points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to
@@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
.B MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
and
.BR MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES .
+Or, the
+.B MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
+isn't supported by the Linux kernel.
.TP
.B ENOMEM
Insufficient kernel memory was available.
--
2.29.2
A new API: numa_set_membind_balancing() is added to libnuma. It is
same as numa_set_membind() except that the Linux kernel NUMA balancing
will be enabled for the task if the feature is supported by the
kernel.
At the same time, a new option: --balancing (-b) is added to numactl.
Which can be used before the memory policy options in the command
line. With it, the Linux kernel NUMA balancing will be enabled for
the process if the feature is supported by the kernel.
Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
---
libnuma.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
numa.3 | 15 +++++++++++++++
numa.h | 4 ++++
numactl.8 | 9 +++++++++
numactl.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
numaif.h | 3 +++
versions.ldscript | 8 ++++++++
7 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libnuma.c b/libnuma.c
index 88f479b..f073c50 100644
--- a/libnuma.c
+++ b/libnuma.c
@@ -1064,6 +1064,20 @@ numa_set_membind_v2(struct bitmask *bmp)
make_internal_alias(numa_set_membind_v2);
+void
+numa_set_membind_balancing(struct bitmask *bmp)
+{
+ /* MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING: ignore if unsupported */
+ if (set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND | MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING,
+ bmp->maskp, bmp->size + 1) < 0) {
+ if (errno == EINVAL) {
+ errno = 0;
+ numa_set_membind_v2(bmp);
+ } else
+ numa_error("set_mempolicy");
+ }
+}
+
/*
* copy a bitmask map body to a numa.h nodemask_t structure
*/
diff --git a/numa.3 b/numa.3
index 3e18098..af01c8f 100644
--- a/numa.3
+++ b/numa.3
@@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ numa \- NUMA policy library
.br
.BI "void numa_set_membind(struct bitmask *" nodemask );
.br
+.BI "void numa_set_membind_balancing(struct bitmask *" nodemask );
+.br
.B struct bitmask *numa_get_membind(void);
.sp
.BI "void *numa_alloc_onnode(size_t " size ", int " node );
@@ -538,6 +540,19 @@ that contains nodes other than those in the mask returned by
.IR numa_get_mems_allowed ()
will result in an error.
+.BR numa_set_membind_balancing ()
+sets the memory allocation mask and enable the Linux kernel NUMA
+balancing for the task if the feature is supported by the kernel.
+The task will only allocate memory from the nodes set in
+.IR nodemask .
+Passing an empty
+.I nodemask
+or a
+.I nodemask
+that contains nodes other than those in the mask returned by
+.IR numa_get_mems_allowed ()
+will result in an error.
+
.BR numa_get_membind ()
returns the mask of nodes from which memory can currently be allocated.
If the returned mask is equal to
diff --git a/numa.h b/numa.h
index bd1d676..5d8543a 100644
--- a/numa.h
+++ b/numa.h
@@ -192,6 +192,10 @@ void numa_set_localalloc(void);
/* Only allocate memory from the nodes set in mask. 0 to turn off */
void numa_set_membind(struct bitmask *nodemask);
+/* Only allocate memory from the nodes set in mask. Optimize page
+ placement with Linux kernel NUMA balancing if possible. 0 to turn off */
+void numa_set_membind_balancing(struct bitmask *bmp);
+
/* Return current membind */
struct bitmask *numa_get_membind(void);
diff --git a/numactl.8 b/numactl.8
index f3bb22b..109dd8f 100644
--- a/numactl.8
+++ b/numactl.8
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ numactl \- Control NUMA policy for processes or shared memory
[
.B \-\-all
] [
+.B \-\-balancing
+] [
.B \-\-interleave nodes
] [
.B \-\-preferred node
@@ -168,6 +170,9 @@ but if memory cannot be allocated there fall back to other nodes.
This option takes only a single node number.
Relative notation may be used.
.TP
+.B \-\-balancing, \-b
+Enable Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the process if it is supported by kernel.
+.TP
.B \-\-show, \-s
Show NUMA policy settings of the current process.
.TP
@@ -278,6 +283,10 @@ numactl \-\-cpunodebind=0 \-\-membind=0,1 -- process -l
Run process as above, but with an option (-l) that would be confused with
a numactl option.
+numactl \-\-cpunodebind=0 \-\-balancing \-\-membind=0,1 process
+Run process on node 0 with memory allocated on node 0 and 1. Optimize the
+page placement with Linux kernel NUMA balancing mechanism if possible.
+
numactl \-\-cpunodebind=netdev:eth0 \-\-membind=netdev:eth0 network-server
Run network-server on the node of network device eth0 with its memory
also in the same node.
diff --git a/numactl.c b/numactl.c
index df9dbcb..5a9d2df 100644
--- a/numactl.c
+++ b/numactl.c
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ struct option opts[] = {
{"membind", 1, 0, 'm'},
{"show", 0, 0, 's' },
{"localalloc", 0,0, 'l'},
+ {"balancing", 0, 0, 'b'},
{"hardware", 0,0,'H' },
{"shm", 1, 0, 'S'},
@@ -65,9 +66,10 @@ struct option opts[] = {
void usage(void)
{
fprintf(stderr,
- "usage: numactl [--all | -a] [--interleave= | -i <nodes>] [--preferred= | -p <node>]\n"
- " [--physcpubind= | -C <cpus>] [--cpunodebind= | -N <nodes>]\n"
- " [--membind= | -m <nodes>] [--localalloc | -l] command args ...\n"
+ "usage: numactl [--all | -a] [--balancing | -b] [--interleave= | -i <nodes>]\n"
+ " [--preferred= | -p <node>] [--physcpubind= | -C <cpus>]\n"
+ " [--cpunodebind= | -N <nodes>] [--membind= | -m <nodes>]\n"
+ " [--localalloc | -l] command args ...\n"
" numactl [--show | -s]\n"
" numactl [--hardware | -H]\n"
" numactl [--length | -l <length>] [--offset | -o <offset>] [--shmmode | -M <shmmode>]\n"
@@ -90,6 +92,8 @@ void usage(void)
"all numbers and ranges can be made cpuset-relative with +\n"
"the old --cpubind argument is deprecated.\n"
"use --cpunodebind or --physcpubind instead\n"
+ "use --balancing | -b to enable Linux kernel NUMA balancing\n"
+ "for the process if it is supported by kernel\n"
"<length> can have g (GB), m (MB) or k (KB) suffixes\n");
exit(1);
}
@@ -338,6 +342,7 @@ int do_dump = 0;
int shmattached = 0;
int did_node_cpu_parse = 0;
int parse_all = 0;
+int numa_balancing = 0;
char *shmoption;
void check_cpubind(int flag)
@@ -431,6 +436,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
nopolicy();
hardware();
exit(0);
+ case 'b': /* --balancing */
+ nopolicy();
+ numa_balancing = 1;
+ break;
case 'i': /* --interleave */
checknuma();
if (parse_all)
@@ -507,6 +516,8 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
numa_set_bind_policy(1);
if (shmfd >= 0) {
numa_tonodemask_memory(shmptr, shmlen, mask);
+ } else if (numa_balancing) {
+ numa_set_membind_balancing(mask);
} else {
numa_set_membind(mask);
}
diff --git a/numaif.h b/numaif.h
index 91aa230..32c12c3 100644
--- a/numaif.h
+++ b/numaif.h
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ extern long move_pages(int pid, unsigned long count,
#define MPOL_LOCAL 4
#define MPOL_MAX 5
+/* Flags for set_mempolicy, specified in mode */
+#define MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING (1 << 13) /* Optimize with NUMA balancing if possible */
+
/* Flags for get_mem_policy */
#define MPOL_F_NODE (1<<0) /* return next il node or node of address */
/* Warning: MPOL_F_NODE is unsupported and
diff --git a/versions.ldscript b/versions.ldscript
index 23074a0..358eeeb 100644
--- a/versions.ldscript
+++ b/versions.ldscript
@@ -146,3 +146,11 @@ libnuma_1.4 {
local:
*;
} libnuma_1.3;
+
+# New interface for membind with NUMA balancing optimization
+libnuma_1.5 {
+ global:
+ numa_set_membind_balancing;
+ local:
+ *;
+} libnuma_1.4;
--
2.29.2
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
> ---
> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
> .I nodemask
> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
> +.TP
> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
> +by kernel.
> +If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is
> +set to EINVAL.
> .PP
> .I nodemask
> points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to
> @@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
Should this be expanded more to clarify it applies to MPOL_BIND
specifically?
Maybe the first patch should be expanded more and explictly fail if
MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING is used with anything other than MPOL_BIND?
> .B MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
> and
> .BR MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES .
> +Or, the
> +.B MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
> +isn't supported by the Linux kernel.
This will be difficult for an app to distinguish but we can't go back in
time and make this ENOSYS :(
The linux-api people might have more guidance but it may go to the
extent of including a small test program in the manual page for a
sequence that tests whether MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING works. They might have
a better recommendation on how it should be handled.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:34PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> A new API: numa_set_membind_balancing() is added to libnuma. It is
> same as numa_set_membind() except that the Linux kernel NUMA balancing
> will be enabled for the task if the feature is supported by the
> kernel.
>
> At the same time, a new option: --balancing (-b) is added to numactl.
> Which can be used before the memory policy options in the command
> line. With it, the Linux kernel NUMA balancing will be enabled for
> the process if the feature is supported by the kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
> index f3bb22b..109dd8f 100644
> --- a/numactl.8
> +++ b/numactl.8
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ numactl \- Control NUMA policy for processes or shared memory
> [
> .B \-\-all
> ] [
> +.B \-\-balancing
> +] [
--balancing is a bit vague, maybe --balance-bind? The intent is to hint
that it's specific to MPOL_BIND at this time.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Hi Huang Ying,
Please see a few fixes below.
Michael, as always, some question for you too ;)
Thanks,
Alex
On 12/2/20 9:42 AM, Huang Ying wrote:
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
> ---
> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
> .I nodemask
> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
> +.TP
> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
I'd prefer it to be in alphabetical order (rather than just adding at
the bottom).
That way, when lists grow, it's easier to find things.
> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
> +by kernel.
I'd s/Linux kernel/kernel/ when it doesn't specifically refer to the
Linux kernel to differentiate it from other kernels. It only adds noise
(IMHO). mtk?
wfix:
... supported by _the_ kernel.
> +If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is
wfix:
If the flag isn't supported by _the_ kernel, ...
> +set to EINVAL.
errno and EINVAL should use .I and .B respectively
> .PP
> .I nodemask
> points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to
> @@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
> .B MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
> and
> .BR MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES .
> +Or, the
> +.B MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
> +isn't supported by the Linux kernel.
> .TP
> .B ENOMEM
> Insufficient kernel memory was available.
>
Mel Gorman <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
>> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
>> .I nodemask
>> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
>> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
>> +.TP
>> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
>> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
>> +by kernel.
>> +If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is
>> +set to EINVAL.
>> .PP
>> .I nodemask
>> points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to
>> @@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
>
> Should this be expanded more to clarify it applies to MPOL_BIND
> specifically?
>
> Maybe the first patch should be expanded more and explictly fail if
> MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING is used with anything other than MPOL_BIND?
For MPOL_PREFERRED, why could we not use NUMA balancing to migrate pages
to the accessing local node if it is same as the preferred node? We
have a way to turn off NUMA balancing already, why could we not provide
a way to enable it if that's intended?
Even for MPOL_INTERLEAVE, if the target node is the same as the
accessing local node, can we use NUMA balancing to migrate pages?
So, I prefer to make MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING to be
Optimizing with NUMA balancing if possible, and we may add more
optimization in the future.
Do you agree?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>> .B MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES
>> and
>> .BR MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES .
>> +Or, the
>> +.B MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
>> +isn't supported by the Linux kernel.
>
> This will be difficult for an app to distinguish but we can't go back in
> time and make this ENOSYS :(
>
> The linux-api people might have more guidance but it may go to the
> extent of including a small test program in the manual page for a
> sequence that tests whether MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING works. They might have
> a better recommendation on how it should be handled.
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:49:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> >> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
> >> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> >> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
> >> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
> >> .I nodemask
> >> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
> >> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
> >> +.TP
> >> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
> >> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
> >> +by kernel.
> >> +If the flag isn't supported by Linux kernel, return -1 and errno is
> >> +set to EINVAL.
> >> .PP
> >> .I nodemask
> >> points to a bit mask of node IDs that contains up to
> >> @@ -293,6 +299,9 @@ argument specified both
> >
> > Should this be expanded more to clarify it applies to MPOL_BIND
> > specifically?
> >
> > Maybe the first patch should be expanded more and explictly fail if
> > MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING is used with anything other than MPOL_BIND?
>
> For MPOL_PREFERRED, why could we not use NUMA balancing to migrate pages
> to the accessing local node if it is same as the preferred node?
You could but the kernel patch does not do that by making preferred_nid
stick to the preferred node when hinting faults are trapped on that VMA.
It would have to be a separate patch coupled with a man page update. If
you wanted to go in this direction in the future, then the patch should
explicitly return an error *now* if MPOL_PREFERRED is or'd with
MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING so that an application becomes aware of
MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING then it can detect if support exists in the
current running kernel.
> Even for MPOL_INTERLEAVE, if the target node is the same as the
> accessing local node, can we use NUMA balancing to migrate pages?
>
The intent of MPOL_INTERLEAVE is to average the costs of the memory
access so the average cost across the VMA is roughly similar across the
entire range. This may be particularly important if the VMA is shared
between multiple threads that are spread out on multiple nodes. A change
in semantics there should be clearly documented.
Similar, if you want to go in this direction, MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING
should be chcked against MPOL_INTERLEAVE and explicitly fail now so
suport can be detected at runtime.
> So, I prefer to make MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING to be
>
> Optimizing with NUMA balancing if possible, and we may add more
> optimization in the future.
>
Maybe, but I think it's best that the actual behaviour of the kernel is
documented instead of desired behaviour or future planning.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Hi, Alex,
Sorry for late, I just notice this email today.
"Alejandro Colomar (mailing lists; readonly)"
<[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Huang Ying,
>
> Please see a few fixes below.
>
> Michael, as always, some question for you too ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
> On 12/2/20 9:42 AM, Huang Ying wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
>> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
>> .I nodemask
>> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
>> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
>> +.TP
>> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
>
> I'd prefer it to be in alphabetical order (rather than just adding at
> the bottom).
That's OK for me. But it's better to be done in another patch to
distinguish contents from pure order change?
> That way, when lists grow, it's easier to find things.
>
>> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
>> +by kernel.
>
> I'd s/Linux kernel/kernel/ when it doesn't specifically refer to the
> Linux kernel to differentiate it from other kernels. It only adds noise
> (IMHO). mtk?
Sure. Will fix this and all following comments below. Thanks a lot for
your help! I am new to man pages.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Hi Huang, Ying,
Sorry I forgot to answer.
See below.
BTW, Linux 5.10 has been released recently;
is this series already merged for 5.11?
If not yet, could you just write '5.??' and we'll fix it (and add a
commit number in a comment) when we know the definitive version?
Thanks,
Alex
On 12/8/20 9:13 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Alex,
>
> Sorry for late, I just notice this email today.
>
> "Alejandro Colomar (mailing lists; readonly)"
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Hi Huang Ying,
>>
>> Please see a few fixes below.
>>
>> Michael, as always, some question for you too ;)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 12/2/20 9:42 AM, Huang Ying wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
>>> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
>>> .I nodemask
>>> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
>>> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
>>> +.TP
>>> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
>>
>> I'd prefer it to be in alphabetical order (rather than just adding at
>> the bottom).
>
> That's OK for me. But it's better to be done in another patch to
> distinguish contents from pure order change?
Yes, if you could do a series of 2 patches with a reordering first, it
would be great.
>
>> That way, when lists grow, it's easier to find things.
>>
>>> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
>>> +by kernel.
>>
>> I'd s/Linux kernel/kernel/ when it doesn't specifically refer to the
>> Linux kernel to differentiate it from other kernels. It only adds noise
>> (IMHO). mtk?
>
> Sure. Will fix this and all following comments below. Thanks a lot for
> your help! I am new to man pages.
Thank you!
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
"Alejandro Colomar (mailing lists; readonly)"
<[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Huang, Ying,
>
> Sorry I forgot to answer.
> See below.
>
> BTW, Linux 5.10 has been released recently;
> is this series already merged for 5.11?
> If not yet, could you just write '5.??' and we'll fix it (and add a
> commit number in a comment) when we know the definitive version?
Sure. Will replace it with 5.12. Thanks for reminding!
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
> On 12/8/20 9:13 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Alex,
>>
>> Sorry for late, I just notice this email today.
>>
>> "Alejandro Colomar (mailing lists; readonly)"
>> <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Huang Ying,
>>>
>>> Please see a few fixes below.
>>>
>>> Michael, as always, some question for you too ;)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On 12/2/20 9:42 AM, Huang Ying wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> man2/set_mempolicy.2 | 9 +++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/man2/set_mempolicy.2 b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>>> index 68011eecb..3754b3e12 100644
>>>> --- a/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>>> +++ b/man2/set_mempolicy.2
>>>> @@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ A nonempty
>>>> .I nodemask
>>>> specifies node IDs that are relative to the set of
>>>> node IDs allowed by the process's current cpuset.
>>>> +.TP
>>>> +.BR MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING " (since Linux 5.11)"
>>>
>>> I'd prefer it to be in alphabetical order (rather than just adding at
>>> the bottom).
>>
>> That's OK for me. But it's better to be done in another patch to
>> distinguish contents from pure order change?
>
> Yes, if you could do a series of 2 patches with a reordering first, it
> would be great.
>
>>
>>> That way, when lists grow, it's easier to find things.
>>>
>>>> +Enable the Linux kernel NUMA balancing for the task if it is supported
>>>> +by kernel.
>>>
>>> I'd s/Linux kernel/kernel/ when it doesn't specifically refer to the
>>> Linux kernel to differentiate it from other kernels. It only adds noise
>>> (IMHO). mtk?
>>
>> Sure. Will fix this and all following comments below. Thanks a lot for
>> your help! I am new to man pages.
>
> Thank you!
>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
>>