Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers

[Huang, Ying]

"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