Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <3842f49f-d940-333b-74ad-55d1521209cb@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Mar 2022 15:40:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com,
        baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        ying.huang@intel.com
References: <20220329115222.8923-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
 <55161160-1084-c81d-d116-00f5bcaa1268@intel.com>
 <YkM3/vKRoy8/fnvD@li-6e1fa1cc-351b-11b2-a85c-b897023bb5f3.ibm.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: set demotion targets differently
In-Reply-To: <YkM3/vKRoy8/fnvD@li-6e1fa1cc-351b-11b2-a85c-b897023bb5f3.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/29/22 09:46, Jagdish Gediya wrote:
>> I'd love to see some more information about *why* the current code
>> doesn't work.  Is it purely a bug or was it mis-designed?
> I think the design seems to be intended because as per the comment
> in the current code, it was known that there are limits to the node
> sharing as a demotion target.

Ahh, that makes sense.

You've got some slow memory that's not really associated closely enough
with an initiator node to be used exclusively for demotions from that
node.  The original code was really intended for demotions when the
system is made up of relatively identical building blocks, like one CPU
with two kinds of memory attached.

I think what you're doing here makes sense.  The only thing I'll say is
that, at some point, we need to stop messing with the demotion order
that the kernel comes up with.  It's not going to be able to handle
*everything* perfectly.  We're probably not at the point that we should
stop enhancing the kernel-generated demotion order, but let's at least
keep in mind that we should stop eventually.