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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CC0C12002 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B051613CB for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:15:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3B051613CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 782706B00CC; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7334A6B00CD; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:15:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5D3A96B00CF; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:15:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0243.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC056B00CC for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E2F824556B for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:15:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78362903766.05.3984D58 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DF2F000399 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CE62613CA; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:15:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1626308141; bh=Fqy8q1GvFf2rB7W7o9rtwviSp4fk5KSMK7Dm5WpYiWs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=g8YCHlp5dl396g1XhSIrqvKv6404oJvcet/t5nsbAMYxTPIwDKWhsOLAw7q0im44e 5t+wMUNKUUq2KB8Rcf/qvw0WNlH5+NTBtRQUW77eTUXq3bZ1+4KLnGxiBRtJ5m79vy zK1XaU5NL8xb/tp1CaEO/M8HUjtFxKiXxQ7gt+ss= Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:15:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Feng Tang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy Message-Id: <20210714171540.7cb9e221d683b531928b71f5@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1626077374-81682-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> References: <1626077374-81682-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=g8YCHlp5; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org; dmarc=none X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C6DF2F000399 X-Stat-Signature: rwjc43oswnm4hhi1t8n6i7q4o781qj6w X-HE-Tag: 1626308142-33879 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 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:09:28 +0800 Feng Tang wrote: > This patch series introduces the concept of the MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY mempolicy. > This mempolicy mode can be used with either the set_mempolicy(2) or mbind(2) > interfaces. Like the MPOL_PREFERRED interface, it allows an application to set a > preference for nodes which will fulfil memory allocation requests. Unlike the > MPOL_PREFERRED mode, it takes a set of nodes. Like the MPOL_BIND interface, it > works over a set of nodes. Unlike MPOL_BIND, it will not cause a SIGSEGV or > invoke the OOM killer if those preferred nodes are not available. Do we have any real-world testing which demonstrates the benefits of all of this?