"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? So, what's the conclusion here? Both path works for me. I will update 2/3 per Alejandro Colomar's comments. But that's for man-pages only, not for kernel. So, we can merge this one into kernel if you think it's appropriate. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
