linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers

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: <080d64c3-1289-49c4-f4a0-105e5266a6f0@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:58:43 +0530
From:   Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory
 tiers

On 6/13/22 6:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 01:30:08PM +0800, Ying Huang wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:01 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>>> On 6/13/22 8:52 AM, Ying Huang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 19:22 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> +config TIERED_MEMORY
>>>>> +	def_bool NUMA
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> As Yang pointed out, why not just use CONFIG_NUMA?  I suspect the
>>>> added value of CONIFIG_TIRED_MEMORY.
>>>
>>> I decided to use TIERED_MEMORY to bring more clarity. It should be same
>>> now that we have moved CONFIG_MIGRATION dependencies to runtime. IMHO
>>> having CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY is better than using CONFIG_NUMA.
>>
>> I don't think CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY bring no much value.  It's better
>> to use CONFIG_NUMA directly.  But this is just my opinion.
> 
> I agree. As long as it's always built with CONFIG_NUMA, it's simply
> NUMA code. Easy enough to modularize it later if somebody really wants
> this to be configurable separately.

I was comparing,

#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
struct memory_tier {

vs

#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
struct memory_tier {

I will switch to CONFIG_NUMA in the next update since you are not 
finding it beneficial.

-aneesh