Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
>
Thanks about this again. It seems that we don't need to touch
task->il_prev and task->il_weight during rebinding for weighted
interleave too.
For weighted interleaving, il_prev is the node used for previous
allocation, il_weight is the weight after previous allocation. So
weighted_interleave_nodes() could be as follows,
unsigned int weighted_interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
{
unsigned int nid;
struct task_struct *me = current;
nid = me->il_prev;
if (!me->il_weight || !node_isset(nid, policy->nodes)) {
nid = next_node_in(...);
me->il_prev = nid;
me->il_weight = weights[nid];
}
me->il_weight--;
return nid;
}
If this works, we can just add il_weight into task_struct.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
