Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:37:31 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     mgorman@techsingularity.net, riel@surriel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        keith.busch@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        fengguang.wu@intel.com, fan.du@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/10] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node
Message-ID: <20190326183731.GV28406@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1553316275-21985-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190326135837.GP28406@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <43a1a59d-dc4a-6159-2c78-e1faeb6e0e46@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43a1a59d-dc4a-6159-2c78-e1faeb6e0e46@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 26-03-19 11:33:17, Yang Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/26/19 6:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sat 23-03-19 12:44:25, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > With Dave Hansen's patches merged into Linus's tree
> > > 
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c221c0b0308fd01d9fb33a16f64d2fd95f8830a4
> > > 
> > > PMEM could be hot plugged as NUMA node now. But, how to use PMEM as NUMA node
> > > effectively and efficiently is still a question.
> > > 
> > > There have been a couple of proposals posted on the mailing list [1] [2].
> > > 
> > > The patchset is aimed to try a different approach from this proposal [1]
> > > to use PMEM as NUMA nodes.
> > > 
> > > The approach is designed to follow the below principles:
> > > 
> > > 1. Use PMEM as normal NUMA node, no special gfp flag, zone, zonelist, etc.
> > > 
> > > 2. DRAM first/by default. No surprise to existing applications and default
> > > running. PMEM will not be allocated unless its node is specified explicitly
> > > by NUMA policy. Some applications may be not very sensitive to memory latency,
> > > so they could be placed on PMEM nodes then have hot pages promote to DRAM
> > > gradually.
> > Why are you pushing yourself into the corner right at the beginning? If
> > the PMEM is exported as a regular NUMA node then the only difference
> > should be performance characteristics (module durability which shouldn't
> > play any role in this particular case, right?). Applications which are
> > already sensitive to memory access should better use proper binding already.
> > Some NUMA topologies might have quite a large interconnect penalties
> > already. So this doesn't sound like an argument to me, TBH.
> 
> The major rationale behind this is we assume the most applications should be
> sensitive to memory access, particularly for meeting the SLA. The
> applications run on the machine may be agnostic to us, they may be sensitive
> or non-sensitive. But, assuming they are sensitive to memory access sounds
> safer from SLA point of view. Then the "cold" pages could be demoted to PMEM
> nodes by kernel's memory reclaim or other tools without impairing the SLA.
> 
> If the applications are not sensitive to memory access, they could be bound
> to PMEM or allowed to use PMEM (nice to have allocation on DRAM) explicitly,
> then the "hot" pages could be promoted to DRAM.

Again, how is this different from NUMA in general?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs