linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sched/numa: Introduce per cgroup numa balance control

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: <Z8hh1urLnpmMxHqW@localhost.localhost>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:38:14 +0000
From: Kaiyang Zhao <kaiyang2@...cmu.edu>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
	Michael Wang <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sched/numa: Introduce per cgroup numa balance
 control

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:59:33PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> This per-cgroup NUMA balancing control was once proposed in
> 2019 by Yun Wang[1]. Then, in 2024, Kaiyang Zhao mentioned
> that he was working with Meta on per-cgroup NUMA control[2]
> during a discussion with David Rientjes.
> 
> I could not find further discussion regarding per-cgroup NUMA
> balancing from that point on. This set of RFC patches is a
> rough and compile-passed version, and may have unhandled cases
> (for example, THP). It has not been thoroughly tested and is
> intended to initiate or resume the discussion on the topic of
> per-cgroup NUMA load balancing.

Hello Chen,

It's nice to see people interested in this. I posted a set of RFC patches
later[1] that focuses on the fairness issue in memory tiering. It mostly
concerns the demotion side of things, and the promotion / NUMA balancing
side of things was left out of the patch set.

I don't work for Meta now, but my understanding is that they'll attempt
to push through a solution for per-cgroup control of memory tiering that
is in the same vein as my RFC patches, and it may include controls for
per-group NUMA balancing in the context of tiered memory.

Best,
Kaiyang

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240920221202.1734227-1-kaiyang2@cs.cmu.edu/