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?
