linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 00/10] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20220819173431.5c391297042eff209e821088@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:34:31 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
Cc:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.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>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, jvgediya.oss@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/10] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion

On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:57:18 +0530 Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com> wrote:

> > The kernel initialization code makes the decision on which exact tier a memory
> > node should be assigned to based on the requests from the device drivers as well
> > as the memory device hardware information provided by the firmware.
> 
> I gave this patchset a quick try on two setups:
> 
> 1. With QEMU, when an nvdimm device is bound to dax kmem driver, I can see
> the memory node with pmem getting into a lower tier than DRAM.
> 
> 2. In an experimental CXL setup that has DRAM as part of CXL memory, I see that
> CXL memory node falls into the same tier as the regular DRAM tier. This is
> expected for now since there is no code (in low level ACPI driver?) yet to
> map the latency or bandwidth info (when available from firmware) into an
> abstract distance value, and register a memory type for the same. Guess these
> bits can be covered as part of future enhancements.

Should I add your Tested-by:?