"Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <[email protected]> writes: > On 3/13/26 07:14, JP Kobryn (Meta) wrote: >> On 3/12/26 10:07 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>> "JP Kobryn (Meta)" <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On 3/12/26 6:40 AM, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >>>> >>>> How about I change from per-policy hit/miss/foreign triplets to a single >>>> aggregated policy triplet (i.e. just 3 new counters which account for >>>> all policies)? They would follow the same hit/miss/foreign semantics >>>> already proposed (visible in quoted text above). This would still >>>> provide the otherwise missing signal of whether policy-driven >>>> allocations to a node are intentional or fallback. >>>> >>>> Note that I am also planning on moving the stats off of the memcg so the >>>> 3 new counters will be global per-node in response to similar feedback. >>> >>> Emm, what's the difference between these newly added counters and the >>> existing numa_hit/miss/foreign counters? >> >> The existing counters don't account for node masks in the policies that >> make use of them. An allocation can land on a node in the mask and still >> be considered a miss because it wasn't the preferred node. > > That sounds like we could just a new counter e.g. numa_hit_preferred and > adjust definitions accordingly? Or some other variant that fills the gap?
Or can we adjust the semantics of numa_hit/miss/foreign to consider the preferred nodemask instead of the preferred node? Is there some programs to depends on the current behavior? --- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
