On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 16-04-19 12:19:21, Yang Shi wrote:
On 4/16/19 12:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> Why cannot we simply demote in the proximity order? Why do you make
> cpuless nodes so special? If other close nodes are vacant then just use
> them.
We could. But, this raises another question, would we prefer to just demote
to the next fallback node (just try once), if it is contended, then just
swap (i.e. DRAM0 -> PMEM0 -> Swap); or would we prefer to try all the nodes
in the fallback order to find the first less contended one (i.e. DRAM0 ->
PMEM0 -> DRAM1 -> PMEM1 -> Swap)?
I would go with the later. Why, because it is more natural. Because that
is the natural allocation path so I do not see why this shouldn't be the
natural demotion path.
"Demotion" should be more performance wise by "demoting to the
next-level (cheaper/slower) memory". Otherwise something like this
may happen.
DRAM0 pressured => demote cold pages to DRAM1
DRAM1 pressured => demote cold pages to DRAM0
Kind of DRAM0/DRAM1 exchanged a fraction of the demoted cold pages,
which looks not helpful for overall system performance.
Over time, it's even possible some cold pages get "demoted" in path
DRAM0=>DRAM1=>DRAM0=>DRAM1=>...
Thanks,
Fengguang
