[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08e95d68-7ba9-44d0-da85-41dc244b4c99@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:07:43 +0800
From: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process
numa_balancing
On 11/10/21 12:26 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Of those two, I agree with the second one, it would be tricky to implement
> but the first one is less clear. This is based on an assumption. If prctl
> exists to enable/disable NUMA baalancing, it's possible that someone
> else would want to control NUMA balancing on a cgroup basis instead of
> globally which would run into the same type of concerns -- different
> semantics depending on the global tunable.
>
Hi!
You talk about the "semantics" of NUMA balancing between global, cgroup
and process. While I read the kernel doc "NUMA Memory Policy", it occur
to me that we may have a "NUMA Balancing Policy".
Since you are the reviewer of CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING. I would like to
discuss the need for introducing "NUMA Balancing Policy" with you. Is
this worth doing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists