"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + */
>
> ....
>
>>> +int next_demotion_node(int node)
>>> +{
>>> + struct demotion_nodes *nd;
>>> + int target;
>>> +
>>> + if (!node_demotion)
>>> + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>>> +
>>> + nd = &node_demotion[node];
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding this
>>> + * function from running.
>>> + *
>>> + * Make sure to use RCU over entire code blocks if
>>> + * node_demotion[] reads need to be consistent.
>>> + */
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + /*
>>> + * If there are multiple target nodes, just select one
>>> + * target node randomly.
>>> + *
>>> + * In addition, we can also use round-robin to select
>>> + * target node, but we should introduce another variable
>>> + * for node_demotion[] to record last selected target node,
>>> + * that may cause cache ping-pong due to the changing of
>>> + * last target node. Or introducing per-cpu data to avoid
>>> + * caching issue, which seems more complicated. So selecting
>>> + * target node randomly seems better until now.
>>> + */
>>> + target = node_random(&nd->preferred);
>>
>> Don't find code to optimize node_random() for weight == 1 case, forget
>> to do that?
>
> I guess you suggested to do that as the patch for node_random or did I
> got the review feedback wrong?
Yes.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87y1wdn30p.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The change for node_random will be patch outside this series.
I think we can include it in this series. Because the series provide
more information about why we need the change.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
