Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 03:09:44PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > That's 3-6% performance in this contrived case.
>>
>> This is small too.
>>
>
> Small is relative. 3-6% performance increase across millions of servers
> across a year is a non trivial speedup for such a common operation.
If we cannot only get 3-6% performance increase in a micro-benchmark,
how much can we get from a real life workloads?
Anyway, we need to prove the usefulness of the change via data. 3-6%
isn't some strong data.
Can we measure the largest improvement? For example, run the benchmark
with all file pages in DRAM and CXL.mem via numa binding, and compare.
>> > Can easily piggyback on that, just wasn't sure if overloading it was
>> > an acceptable idea.
>>
>> It's the recommended setup in the original PMEM promotion
>> implementation. Please check commit c959924b0dc5 ("memory tiering:
>> adjust hot threshold automatically").
>>
>> > Although since that promotion rate limit is also
>> > per-task (as far as I know, will need to read into it a bit more) this
>> > is probably fine.
>>
>> It's not per-task. Please read the code, especially
>> should_numa_migrate_memory().
>
> Oh, then this is already throttled. We call mpol_misplaced which calls
> should_numa_migrate_memory.
>
> There's some duplication of candidate selection logic between
> promotion_candidate and should_numa_migrate_memory, but it may be
> beneficial to keep it that way. I'll have to look.
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
