Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Node Weights and Weighted Interleave

[Huang, Ying]

Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 15:45:13 +0800
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:47:33AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:  
>> >> On Wed 01-11-23 12:58:55, Gregory Price wrote:  
>> >> > Basically consider: `numactl --interleave=all ...`
>> >> > 
>> >> > If `--weights=...`: when a node hotplug event occurs, there is no
>> >> > recourse for adding a weight for the new node (it will default to 1).  
>> >> 
>> >> Correct and this is what I was asking about in an earlier email. How
>> >> much do we really need to consider this setup. Is this something nice to
>> >> have or does the nature of the technology requires to be fully dynamic
>> >> and expect new nodes coming up at any moment?
>> >>    
>> >
>> > Dynamic Capacity is expected to cause a numa node to change size (in
>> > number of memory blocks) rather than cause numa nodes to come and go, so
>> > maybe handling the full node hotplug is a bit of an overreach.  
>> 
>> Will node max bandwidth change with the number of memory blocks?
>
> Typically no as even a single memory extent would probably be interleaved
> across all the actual memory devices (think DIMMS for simplicity) within
> a CXL device. I guess a device 'could' do some scaling based on capacity
> provided to a particular host but feels like they should be separate controls.
> I don't recall there being anything in the specification to suggest the
> need to recheck the CDAT info for updates when DC add / remove events happen.

Sounds good!  Thank you for detailed explanation.

> Mind you, who knows in future :)  We'll point out in relevant forums that
> doing so would be very hard to handle cleanly in Linux.

Thanks!

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying