Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210329183312.178266-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <20210330164200.01a4b78f@thinkpad>
 <CAHbLzkrYd+5L8Ep+b83PkkFL_QGQe_vSAk=erQ+fvC6dEOsGsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210331134727.47bc1e6d@thinkpad> <CAHbLzkquYxq_eXoVhUCib9qu_aMS9U2XXjb5pop9JtJ8uco_vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210406140251.2779c400@thinkpad> <CAHbLzkr2+CnY8+ENB_Hvt7kJPKNq3H2aG=RsOBmBE_dYciqstw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210407083216.GB15768@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20210407083216.GB15768@suse.de>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:04:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqHm5V6KA31wTtgF8kswJ_Cjne72FGgiFk3hLvC9AsHsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] mm: thp: use generic THP migration for NUMA
 hinting fault
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, hca@linux.ibm.com,
        gor@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:32 AM Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:42:07AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:03 AM Gerald Schaefer
> > <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:10:49 -0700
> > > Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it could be. The old behavior of migration was to return -ENOMEM
> > > > > > if THP migration is not supported then split THP. That behavior was
> > > > > > not very friendly to some usecases, for example, memory policy and
> > > > > > migration lieu of reclaim (the upcoming). But I don't mean we restore
> > > > > > the old behavior. We could split THP if it returns -ENOSYS and the
> > > > > > page is THP.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, as long as we don't get any broken PMD migration entries established
> > > > > for s390, some extra THP splitting would be acceptable I guess.
> > > >
> > > > There will be no migration PMD installed. The current behavior is a
> > > > no-op if THP migration is not supported.
> > >
> > > Ok, just for completeness, since Mel also replied that the split
> > > was not done on other architectures "because the loss from splitting
> > > exceeded the gain of improved locality":
> > >
> > > I did not mean to request extra splitting functionality for s390,
> > > simply skipping / ignoring large PMDs would also be fine for s390,
> > > no need to add extra complexity.
> >
> > Thank you. It could make life easier. The current code still converts
> > huge PMD to RPOTNONE even though THP migration is not supported. It is
> > easy to skip such PMDs hence cycles are saved for pointless NUMA
> > hinting page faults.
> >
> > Will do so in v2 if no objection from Mel as well.
>
> I did not get a chance to review this in time but if a v2 shows up,
> I'll at least run it through a battery of tests to measure the impact
> and hopefully find the time to do a proper review. Superficially I'm not
> opposed to using generic code for migration because even if it shows up a
> problem, it would be better to optimise the generic implementation than
> carry two similar implementations. I'm undecided on whether s390 should
> split+migrate rather than skip because I do not have a good overview of
> "typical workloads on s390 that benefit from NUMA balancing".

Thanks, Mel. I don't have an idea about S390 either. I will just skip
huge PMDs for S390 for now as Gerald suggested.

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs