linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] zswap: fix placement inversion in memory tiering systems

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: <CAKEwX=Oijzw-JHrhONK-Fjm6DwC7NkEJbOkAh-2HTV47xxw4UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:17:10 -0700
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, sj@...nel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gourry@...rry.net, willy@...radead.org, 
	ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, 
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, minchan@...nel.org, 
	senozhatsky@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] zswap: fix placement inversion in memory tiering systems

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 3:13 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Good question, yeah the knob is to maintain the old behavior :) It
> might not be optimal, or even advisable, for all set up.
>
> For hosts with node-based memory tiering, then yeah it's a good idea
> in general, but I don't quite know how to have information about that
> from the kernel's perspective.
>
> >
> > Or maybe if there's a way to tell the "tier" of the node we can prefer to allocate from the same "tier"?
>
> Is there an abstraction of the "tier" that we can use here?

Maaaybe "struct memory_tier" (memory-tiers.c)? Lemme take a look at that...