[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210714171540.7cb9e221d683b531928b71f5@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:15:40 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:09:28 +0800 Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> This patch series introduces the concept of the MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY mempolicy.
> This mempolicy mode can be used with either the set_mempolicy(2) or mbind(2)
> interfaces. Like the MPOL_PREFERRED interface, it allows an application to set a
> preference for nodes which will fulfil memory allocation requests. Unlike the
> MPOL_PREFERRED mode, it takes a set of nodes. Like the MPOL_BIND interface, it
> works over a set of nodes. Unlike MPOL_BIND, it will not cause a SIGSEGV or
> invoke the OOM killer if those preferred nodes are not available.
Do we have any real-world testing which demonstrates the benefits of
all of this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists