[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1+S/UkS1DNIwlp7@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:18:53 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: respect cpuset policy during page demotion
On Mon 31-10-22 16:51:11, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri 28-10-22 07:22:27, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu 27-10-22 17:31:35, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> I think that it's possible for different processes have different
> >> >> requirements.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Some processes don't care about where the memory is placed, prefer
> >> >> local, then fall back to remote if no free space.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Some processes want to avoid cross-socket traffic, bind to nodes of
> >> >> local socket.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Some processes want to avoid to use slow memory, bind to fast memory
> >> >> node only.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I do understand that. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
> >> > [...]
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't have specific examples.
> >
> > OK, then let's stop any complicated solution right here then. Let's
> > start simple with a per-mm flag to disable demotion of an address
> > space.
>
> I'm not a big fan of per-mm flag. Because we don't have users for that
> too and it needs to add ABI too.
OK, if there are no users for opt-out then let's jus document the
current limitations and be done with it.
> > Should there ever be a real demand for a more fine grained solution
> > let's go further but I do not think we want a half baked solution
> > without real usecases.
>
> I'm OK to ignore per-task (and missing per-process) memory policy
> support for now.
I am against such a half baked solution.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists