On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 04:35:19PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:54:34PM -0500, Gregory Price wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Can the above code be simplified as something like below?
> >> >
> >> > resume_node = prev_node;
> > --- resume_weight = 0;
> > +++ resume_weight = weights[node];
> >> > for (...) {
> >> > ...
> >> > }
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'll take another look at it, but this logic is annoying because of the
> >> corner case: me->il_prev can be NUMA_NO_NODE or an actual numa node.
> >>
> >
> > After a quick look, as long as no one objects to (me->il_prev) remaining
> > NUMA_NO_NODE
>
> MAX_NUMNODES-1 ?
>
When setting a new policy, the il_prev gets set to NUMA_NO_NODE. It's
not harmful and is just (-1), which is functionally the same as
(MAX_NUMNODES-1) for the purpose of iterating the nodemask with
next_node_in(). So it's fine to set (resume_node = me->il_prev)
as discussed.
I have a cleaned up function I'll push when i fix up a few other spots.
> > while having a weight assigned to pol->wil.cur_weight,
>
> I think that it is OK.
>
> And, IIUC, pol->wil.cur_weight can be 0, as in
> weighted_interleave_nodes(), if it's 0, it will be assigned to default
> weight for the node.
>
cur_weight is different than the global weights. cur_weight tells us
how many pages are remaining to allocate for the current node.
(cur_weight = 0) can happen in two scenarios:
- initial setting of mempolicy (NUMA_NO_NODE w/ cur_weight=0)
- weighted_interleave_nodes decrements it down to 0
Now that i'm looking at it - the second condition should not exist, and
we can eliminate it. The logic in weighted_interleave_nodes is actually
annoyingly unclear at the moment, so I'm going to re-factor it a bit to
be more explicit.
~Gregory
