Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:40:54AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:42:32PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: >> > Now, NUMA balancing can only optimize the page placement among the >> > NUMA nodes if the default memory policy is used. Because the memory >> > policy specified explicitly should take precedence. But this seems >> > too strict in some situations. For example, on a system with 4 NUMA >> > nodes, if the memory of an application is bound to the node 0 and 1, >> > NUMA balancing can potentially migrate the pages between the node 0 >> > and 1 to reduce cross-node accessing without breaking the explicit >> > memory binding policy. >> > >> >> Ok, I think this part is ok and while the test case is somewhat >> superficial, it at least demonstrated that the NUMA balancing overhead >> did not offset any potential benefit >> >> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> > > Who do we expect to merge this, me through tip/sched/core or akpm ? Hi, Peter, Per my understanding, this is NUMA balancing related, so could go through your tree. BTW: I have just sent -V7 with some small changes per Mel's latest comments. Hi, Andrew, Do you agree? Best Regards, Huang, Ying
