[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190417153739.GD4786@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:37:39 -0600
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, riel@...riel.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, fan.du@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
ziy@...dia.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 05:39:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-04-19 09:23:46, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:23:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 16-04-19 14:22:33, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > Keith Busch had a set of patches to let you specify the demotion order
> > > > via sysfs for fun. The rules we came up with were:
> > >
> > > I am not a fan of any sysfs "fun"
> >
> > I'm hung up on the user facing interface, but there should be some way a
> > user decides if a memory node is or is not a migrate target, right?
>
> Why? Or to put it differently, why do we have to start with a user
> interface at this stage when we actually barely have any real usecases
> out there?
The use case is an alternative to swap, right? The user has to decide
which storage is the swap target, so operating in the same spirit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists