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=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 8A793C43460 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2531261220 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:03:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2531261220 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9E1476B0071; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 9BB8A6B0072; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 880766B0073; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0148.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.148]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674EA6B0071 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141D31801ED7F for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:03:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78023883084.04.FE60D8C Received: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (mail-lf1-f49.google.com [209.85.167.49]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE14A0049E3 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id x13so11455057lfr.2 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:03:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Txa0jtEnzVHszI7+7RurZSdLkTftdeKdRRITuMLu8Aw=; b=PKU//OewynQNd7SeSC4KENGCXLIca0cApDWlmgkcNZDG1kpsbr0rPgil0AfgvOY6dl xyI6oUsEgz7I5NjvX0nmU5gKYvslpr/DlU2IIRtDHNsKTNj5mYTMWpVOpf0jlmmt/S1y CUUPJrpfVC9XLPr2/2KydVFWwL1JDLBVppMWOyO+Az5d4syy4eLTXKVvpJh2no8LrH7e ex2ev3hbHYWC5eF6K2hYH3cFW/+lq19/RnT0xtAF8Di+nXWZY6q/eFfZ0rQhHO906gw/ 8g5iI2BKxf1UF0j4bm0jF5b9TGq687Vz2mq2c0Pjjaq4ByhtTs/YAEQgxKfs2aA9Fml4 jqyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Txa0jtEnzVHszI7+7RurZSdLkTftdeKdRRITuMLu8Aw=; b=VrbOAFKBHuUyMXMaPROJexyND4aWaIDl+TzQAX46hzOMusG81vXbvhe0fdStRyS58W l7A76HEONuZCmW6kLvMs/jTguVqeFiZieEmFq3AoKphB2cFlDNt6KcrJx1GVP6PHN2c1 znMOzb8j9N/ZDnSl8ZGWuuWcNhxhNIjtksgsqpXuqaqgjEqKqc8deEXKzAWJK54N9Qfm Y2nH/B9TYT6vmH0X3ErjtjV65N5usO9Dve3enX/Mf/ugXgwdqLLUWPalPpiQ65JGzKfd lMgLSK2y3s7Fm4NOQ6UNdmHu6Xgextf/AnDunUf3j8nfrHyJ2K7EXoX/eQIX2PlqBAgg JBpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531I2JnyE3h/kJf1vZ1Z3iQZ7QEBKhqzf4yRTZbbIM4dCJFK49YZ AYuusuXALNWQh+3JTrkOpRYUqjR+60fjMWGVW8jEpg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdMgH1vZSbLM2ftjQCiG02Bjb8iz3/wBlG8KsX8dUvbr+SMIdSWmWYv9eRFDg9nnny7qYgsT+gUxtHK7Iklhc= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:546c:: with SMTP id e12mr4490386lfn.299.1618236219038; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:03:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:03:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Manage the top tier memory in a tiered memory To: Yang Shi Cc: Tim Chen , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Ying Huang , Dan Williams , David Rientjes , Linux MM , Cgroups , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8AE14A0049E3 X-Stat-Signature: c11e3hhazzneabn4nw8o3y5hoxitaqrt Received-SPF: none (google.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf15; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail-lf1-f49.google.com; client-ip=209.85.167.49 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618236219-355744 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 Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:50 PM Yang Shi wrote: > [...] > > > > The low and min limits have semantics similar to the v1's soft limit > > for this situation i.e. letting the low priority job occupy top tier > > memory and depending on reclaim to take back the excess top tier > > memory use of such jobs. > > I don't get why low priority jobs can *not* use top tier memory? I am saying low priority jobs can use top tier memory. The only difference is to limit them upfront (using limits) or reclaim from them later (using min/low/soft-limit). > I can > think of it may incur latency overhead for high priority jobs. If it > is not allowed, it could be restricted by cpuset without introducing > in any new interfaces. > > I'm supposed the memory utilization could be maximized by allowing all > jobs allocate memory from all applicable nodes, then let reclaimer (or > something new if needed) Most probably something new as we do want to consider unevictable memory as well. > do the job to migrate the memory to proper > nodes by time. We could achieve some kind of balance between memory > utilization and resource isolation. > Tradeoff between utilization and isolation should be decided by the user/admin.