[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffa8eb86-27e3-3a46-4977-0d0cf33503fe@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:22:34 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Manage the top tier memory in a tiered
memory
On 4/8/21 1:29 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:01 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The low and min limits have semantics similar to the v1's soft limit
> for this situation i.e. letting the low priority job occupy top tier
> memory and depending on reclaim to take back the excess top tier
> memory use of such jobs.
>
> I have some thoughts on NUMA node limits which I will share in the other thread.
>
Shakeel,
Look forward to the proposal on NUMA node limits. Which thread are
you going to post it? Want to make sure I didn't miss it.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists