[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc453287-015d-fd1c-fe7f-6ee45772d6aa@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:19:48 +0530
From: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...el.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion
On 10/26/22 1:13 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
> In page reclaim path, memory could be demoted from faster memory tier
> to slower memory tier. Currently, there is no check about cpuset's
> memory policy, that even if the target demotion node is not allowd
> by cpuset, the demotion will still happen, which breaks the cpuset
> semantics.
>
> So add cpuset policy check in the demotion path and skip demotion
> if the demotion targets are not allowed by cpuset.
>
What about the vma policy or the task memory policy? Shouldn't we respect
those memory policy restrictions while demoting the page?
-aneesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists