[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20260115101858.85fd7b8e837c1c92a4fdc5f0@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:18:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cui Chao <cuichao1753@...tium.com.cn>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Mike Rapoport
<rppt@...nel.org>, Wang Yinfeng <wangyinfeng@...tium.com.cn>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: numa_memblks: Identify the accurate NUMA ID
of CFMW
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:43:02 +0800 Cui Chao <cuichao1753@...tium.com.cn> wrote:
> When a CXL RAM region is created in userspace, the memory capacity of
> the newly created region is not added to the CFMW-dedicated NUMA node.
> Instead, it is accumulated into an existing NUMA node (e.g., NUMA0
> containing RAM). This makes it impossible to clearly distinguish between
> the two types of memory, which may affect memory-tiering applications.
>
OK, thanks, I added this to the changelog. Please retain it when
sending v3.
What I'm actually looking for here are answers to the questions
Should we backport this into -stable kernels and if so, why?
And if not, why not?
So a very complete description of the runtime effects really helps
myself and others to decide which kernels to patch. And it helps
people to understand *why* we made that decision.
And sorry, but "may affect memory-tiering applications" isn't very
complete!
So please, tell us how much our users are hurting from this and please
make a recommendation on the backporting decision.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists