[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190107095753.7feee5fxjja5lt75@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:57:53 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yao Yuan <yuan.yao@...el.com>,
Peng Dong <dongx.peng@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Liu Jingqi <jingqi.liu@...el.com>,
Dong Eddie <eddie.dong@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 10/21] mm: build separate zonelist for PMEM and
DRAM node
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 02:44:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> writes:
>
>> From: Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>
>>
>> When allocate page, DRAM and PMEM node should better not fall back to
>> each other. This allows migration code to explicitly control which type
>> of node to allocate pages from.
>>
>> With this patch, PMEM NUMA node can only be used in 2 ways:
>> - migrate in and out
>> - numactl
>
>Can we achieve this using nodemask? That way we don't tag nodes with
>different properties such as DRAM/PMEM. We can then give the
>flexibilility to the device init code to add the new memory nodes to
>the right nodemask
Aneesh, in patch 2 we did create nodemask numa_nodes_pmem and
numa_nodes_dram. What's your supposed way of "using nodemask"?
Thanks,
Fengguang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists