linux-kernel - Re: [Lsf-pc] Fwd: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <ZEvVqMtnU142GMEU@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:18:16 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>
Cc:     lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] Fwd: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory
 management

For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
future reference.

On Tue 28-02-23 21:20:57, Frank van der Linden via Lsf-pc wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>
> Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM
> Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management
> To: <linux-mm@...ck.org>
> 
> 
> I propose this discussion topic for LSF/MM/BPF.
> 
> In a world where memory topologies are becoming more complicated, is
> it still possible to have an approach where the kernel deals with
> memory management to everyone's satisfaction?
> 
> The answer seemingly has been "not quite", since madvise and mempolicy
> exist. With things like cxl.mem coming into existence, a heterogeneous
> memory setup will become more common.
> 
> The number of madvise options keeps growing. There is now a
> process_madvise, and there are proposed extensions for the mempolicy
> systemcalls, allowing one process to control the policy of another, as
> well. There are exported cgroup interfaces to control reclaim, and
> discussions have taken place on explicit control reclaim-as-demotion
> to other nodes.
> 
> Is this the right approach? If so, would it be a good idea to
> optionally provide BPF hooks to control certain behavior, and let
> userspace direct things even more? Is that even possible,
> performance-wise? Would it make sense to be able to influence the
> MGLRU generation process in a more direct way if needed?
> 
> I think a discussion about these points would be interesting. Or, I
> should say, further discussion.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Lsf-pc mailing list
> Lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsf-pc

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

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