On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:48:47AM -0500, Gregory Price wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:17:46PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > > Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > But, in contrast, it's bad to put task-local "current weight" in > > mempolicy. So, I think that it's better to move cur_il_weight to > > task_struct. And maybe combine it with current->il_prev. > > > Style question: is it preferable add an anonymous union into task_struct: > > union { > short il_prev; > atomic_t wil_node_weight; > }; > > Or should I break out that union explicitly in mempolicy.h? > Having attempted this, it looks like including mempolicy.h into sched.h is a non-starter. There are build issues likely associated from the nested include of uapi/linux/mempolicy.h So I went ahead and did the following. Style-wise If it's better to just integrate this as an anonymous union in task_struct, let me know, but it seemed better to add some documentation here. I also added static get/set functions to mempolicy.c to touch these values accordingly. As suggested, I changed things to allow 0-weight in il_prev.node_weight adjusted the logic accordingly. Will be testing this for a day or so before sending out new patches. ~Gregory diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h index ffe8f618ab86..f0d2af3bbc69 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -745,6 +745,29 @@ struct kmap_ctrl { #endif }; + +/* + * Describes task_struct interleave settings + * + * Interleave uses mpol_interleave.node + * last node allocated from + * intended for use in next_node_in() on the next allocation + * + * Weighted interleave uses mpol_interleave.node_weight + * node is the value of the current node to allocate from + * weight is the number of allocations left on that node + * when weight is 0, next_node_in(node) will be invoked + */ +union mpol_interleave { + struct { + short node; + short resv; + }; + /* structure: short node; u8 resv; u8 weight; */ + atomic_t node_weight; +}; + + struct task_struct { #ifdef CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK /* @@ -1258,7 +1281,7 @@ struct task_struct { #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA /* Protected by alloc_lock: */ struct mempolicy *mempolicy; - short il_prev; + union mpol_interleave il_prev; short pref_node_fork; #endif #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c index 92740b8f0eb5..48e365b507b2 100644 --- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -149,6 +149,66 @@ static struct mempolicy preferred_node_policy[MAX_NUMNODES]; static u8 __rcu *iw_table; static DEFINE_MUTEX(iw_table_lock); +static u8 get_il_weight(int node) +{ + u8 __rcu *table; + u8 weight; + + rcu_read_lock(); + table = rcu_dereference(iw_table); + /* if no iw_table, use system default */ + weight = table ? table[node] : 1; + /* if value in iw_table is 0, use system default */ + weight = weight ? weight : 1; + rcu_read_unlock(); + return weight; +} + +/* Clear any interleave values from task->il_prev */ +static void clear_il_prev(void) +{ + int node_weight; + + node_weight = MAKE_WIL_PREV(MAX_NUMNODES - 1, 0); + atomic_set(¤t->il_prev.node_weight, node_weight); +} + +/* get the next value for weighted interleave */ +static void get_wil_prev(int *node, u8 *weight) +{ + int node_weight; + + node_weight = atomic_read(¤t->il_prev.node_weight); + *node = WIL_NODE(node_weight); + *weight = WIL_WEIGHT(node_weight); +} + +/* set the next value for weighted interleave */ +static void set_wil_prev(int node, u8 weight) +{ + int node_weight; + + if (node == MAX_NUMNODES) + node -= 1; + node_weight = MAKE_WIL_PREV(node, weight); + atomic_set(¤t->il_prev.node_weight, node_weight); +} + +/* get the previous interleave node */ +static short get_il_prev(void) +{ + return current->il_prev.node; +} + +/* set the previous interleave node */ +static void set_il_prev(int node) +{ + if (unlikely(node >= MAX_NUMNODES)) + node = MAX_NUMNODES - 1; + + current->il_prev.node = node; +} +