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:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:48:41 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     "Du, Fan" <fan.du@intel.com>
Cc:     "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "xishi.qiuxishi@alibaba-inc.com" <xishi.qiuxishi@alibaba-inc.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] mm, page_alloc: Introduce
 ZONELIST_FALLBACK_SAME_TYPE fallback list
Message-ID: <20190425074841.GN12751@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1556155295-77723-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com>
 <1556155295-77723-6-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com>
 <20190425063807.GK12751@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <5A90DA2E42F8AE43BC4A093BF067884825785F04@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5A90DA2E42F8AE43BC4A093BF067884825785F04@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 25-04-19 07:43:09, Du, Fan wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@kernel.org]
> >Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:38 PM
> >To: Du, Fan <fan.du@intel.com>
> >Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org; Wu, Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>;
> >Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@intel.com>; Hansen, Dave
> ><dave.hansen@intel.com>; xishi.qiuxishi@alibaba-inc.com; Huang, Ying
> ><ying.huang@intel.com>; linux-mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] mm, page_alloc: Introduce
> >ZONELIST_FALLBACK_SAME_TYPE fallback list
> >
> >On Thu 25-04-19 09:21:35, Fan Du wrote:
> >> On system with heterogeneous memory, reasonable fall back lists woul be:
> >> a. No fall back, stick to current running node.
> >> b. Fall back to other nodes of the same type or different type
> >>    e.g. DRAM node 0 -> DRAM node 1 -> PMEM node 2 -> PMEM node 3
> >> c. Fall back to other nodes of the same type only.
> >>    e.g. DRAM node 0 -> DRAM node 1
> >>
> >> a. is already in place, previous patch implement b. providing way to
> >> satisfy memory request as best effort by default. And this patch of
> >> writing build c. to fallback to the same node type when user specify
> >> GFP_SAME_NODE_TYPE only.
> >
> >So an immediate question which should be answered by this changelog. Who
> >is going to use the new gfp flag? Why cannot all allocations without an
> >explicit numa policy fallback to all existing nodes?
> 
> PMEM is good for frequently read accessed page, e.g. page cache(implicit page
> request), or user space data base (explicit page request)
> For now this patch create GFP_SAME_NODE_TYPE for such cases, additional
> Implementation will be followed up.

Then simply configure that NUMA node as movable and you get these
allocations for any movable allocation. I am not really convinced a new
gfp flag is really justified.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs