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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221012081526.73067-1-huangjie.albert@bytedance.com> <2aaf2c3a-6e49-abb9-b9c8-19ce87404982@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2aaf2c3a-6e49-abb9-b9c8-19ce87404982@redhat.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?6buE5p2w?= <huangjie.albert@bytedance.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:48:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CABKxMyOnxiS6RsJtQEQPrnzNn-cO0Z+OGJRCUpw1M4=WANx0Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: support get/set_policy for hugetlb_vm_ops
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     songmuchun@bytedance.com, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> =E4=BA=8E2022=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8817=E6=
=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=B8=80 16:44=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> On 12.10.22 10:15, Albert Huang wrote:
> > From: "huangjie.albert" <huangjie.albert@bytedance.com>
> >
> > implement these two functions so that we can set the mempolicy to
> > the inode of the hugetlb file. This ensures that the mempolicy of
> > all processes sharing this huge page file is consistent.
> >
> > In some scenarios where huge pages are shared:
> > if we need to limit the memory usage of vm within node0, so I set qemu'=
s
> > mempilciy bind to node0, but if there is a process (such as virtiofsd)
> > shared memory with the vm, in this case. If the page fault is triggered
> > by virtiofsd, the allocated memory may go to node1 which  depends on
> > virtiofsd.
> >
>
> Any VM that uses hugetlb should be preallocating memory. For example,
> this is the expected default under QEMU when using huge pages.
>
> Once preallocation does the right thing regarding NUMA policy, there is
> no need to worry about it in other sub-processes.
>

Hi, David
thanks for your reminder

Yes, you are absolutely right, However, the pre-allocation mechanism
does solve this problem.
However, some scenarios do not like to use the pre-allocation mechanism, su=
ch as
scenarios that are sensitive to virtual machine startup time, or
scenarios that require
high memory utilization. The on-demand allocation mechanism may be better,
so the key point is to find a way support for shared policy=E3=80=82

Thanks,

Albert

> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>