From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADADCCA47B for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E86798D0186; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E35388D0171; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CD60B8D0186; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB54A8D0171 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8865B2133B for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:57:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79573365606.20.A7496E2 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AB318011A for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25DCPhSP007022; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=qYUMEST+bP9k/kJYvw0TZMvwPo1yTFFJ5+kSY3p9rtA=; b=Fm+tL3fznS6TsNGSBlMve+XsoiSjZ7IZJWW5owD8Qk4+gTfwMZCuQUnXQTTP6pdsjXbB YO1AoMkHz+7EEqg0WsHFhtGeUnfLesWhf81chcuSdLYTIJ8qSkc/FJ5vG60YbITCwje1 S0VAXtTqL0PNV/BRzZiD07hvf7rF/dr3hELXUvaj+XZx805tlA2m555icMV1BLzMl+6a RdcUfRnJIkCmy1yBfgxvBEe01trbYG4xt46U58FSorWShw0xd8QpINleX8kDtlZuvf8v 9Mt+JnNCd7/WAzhs/TW6v6TtFH89BPSY57Q88r4M7hhZ/L5UoKBdA+k535tC39moLZib nQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gp5819abh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:58 +0000 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 25DDQdqi023792; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:57 GMT Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3gp5819aax-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:57 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 25DDMQUA012698; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:55 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3gmjp9aurh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:55 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 25DDSriV21627204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:53 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B03A405B; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB30A4054; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.43.31.74] (unknown [9.43.31.74]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:28:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <080d64c3-1289-49c4-f4a0-105e5266a6f0@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:58:43 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Content-Language: en-US To: Johannes Weiner , Ying Huang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Wei Xu , Greg Thelen , Yang Shi , Davidlohr Bueso , Tim C Chen , Brice Goglin , Michal Hocko , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hesham Almatary , Dave Hansen , Jonathan Cameron , Alistair Popple , Dan Williams , Feng Tang , Jagdish Gediya , Baolin Wang , David Rientjes References: <20220610135229.182859-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <20220610135229.182859-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <7e0b41422dbd0976cb43c2f126e9371d5e311e77.camel@intel.com> <48096ad7-ce6d-79b7-1edd-7e6652ab2a4d@linux.ibm.com> From: Aneesh Kumar K V In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 7vqlVs_ASNebhc5-mePDxHBzn4AZNUI0 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: JDNWtd59BKZomjhr8ISgYEAtZb9jgHRO X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.874,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.64.514 definitions=2022-06-13_05,2022-06-13_01,2022-02-23_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2204290000 definitions=main-2206130059 ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1655128627; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=aK2Fp/AU5dIp/u3qqDI7gi9T/4CYUWTG9IGHuNv9NgrKyVG+cCOAmmk1d+jWFwM1ig45j+ q0d616xt6w8DYZQmS2KiD5iMVtGye/fbCFyaq5Apt7hXh1/BE31t5dpGvxoRuPLajCAHtI h4Uu1mW5Pt6Rfmst3SuLCabGF2mWYNQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=Fm+tL3fz; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1655128627; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=qYUMEST+bP9k/kJYvw0TZMvwPo1yTFFJ5+kSY3p9rtA=; b=jg7djZvXdUxlu2Cz3B1sj5iF1cVnMURc4ZdPWebouinohYpBLOIojsIZQpvCSQAv1fEP0b lNxgOQ7i1X0tgbASrKOZQ4IQclwK7ynwvhD1COIWallTxYDA61HcLZn/dxGCMj4PlAN7rN mx6iQzyPvxQViKowaAVxF+unJYZjnRw= X-Stat-Signature: t77jepdkjds58xzqih9xporiczd9wzyk X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 20AB318011A Authentication-Results: imf24.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=Fm+tL3fz; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf24.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-HE-Tag: 1655128624-533946 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 6/13/22 6:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 01:30:08PM +0800, Ying Huang wrote: >> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:01 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: >>> On 6/13/22 8:52 AM, Ying Huang wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 19:22 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>>> +config TIERED_MEMORY >>>>> + def_bool NUMA >>>>> + >>>> >>>> As Yang pointed out, why not just use CONFIG_NUMA? I suspect the >>>> added value of CONIFIG_TIRED_MEMORY. >>> >>> I decided to use TIERED_MEMORY to bring more clarity. It should be same >>> now that we have moved CONFIG_MIGRATION dependencies to runtime. IMHO >>> having CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY is better than using CONFIG_NUMA. >> >> I don't think CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY bring no much value. It's better >> to use CONFIG_NUMA directly. But this is just my opinion. > > I agree. As long as it's always built with CONFIG_NUMA, it's simply > NUMA code. Easy enough to modularize it later if somebody really wants > this to be configurable separately. I was comparing, #ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY struct memory_tier { vs #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA struct memory_tier { I will switch to CONFIG_NUMA in the next update since you are not finding it beneficial. -aneesh