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: <tencent_F6079264D94CE4B445A5EE6C3DAAE162670A@qq.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 23:12:31 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...mail.com>
To: Kaiyang Zhao <kaiyang2@...cmu.edu>
Cc: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, 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>,
	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

Hi Kaiyang,

On 2025-03-05 at 14:38:14 +0000, Kaiyang Zhao wrote:
> 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 see, thanks for the information.
 
> 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.
>

OK, it would be nice to see that patch set. We can continue the disscussion
on this basic per-cgroup Numa balancing control, the tiered memory promotion
could be on top of that IMO.

thanks,
Chenyu
 
> Best,
> Kaiyang
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240920221202.1734227-1-kaiyang2@cs.cmu.edu/