linux-kernel - Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190417163911.GA9523@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:39:11 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
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 17-04-19 09:37:39, Keith Busch wrote:
> 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.

I do not follow. If you use rebalancing you can still deplete the memory
and end up in a swap storage. If you want to reclaim/swap rather than
rebalance then you do not enable rebalancing (by node_reclaim or similar
mechanism).

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs