Re: [RFC 0/4] RFC - Coherent Device Memory (Not for inclusion)

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Balbir Singh wrote:

> > cgroups, memory policy and cpuset provide that
> >
>
> Yes and we are building on top of mempolicies. The problem becomes a little
> worse when the coherent device memory node is seen as CPUless node. I
> was trying to solve 1 and 2 with the same approach.

Well I think having the ability to restrict autonuma/ksm per node may also
be useful for other things. Like running regular processes on node 0 and
running low latency stuff on  node 1 that should not be interrupted. Right
now you cannot do that.

> > > 2. Isolation of certain algorithms like kswapd/auto-numa balancing
> >
> > Ok that may mean adding some generic functionality to limit those
>
> As in per-algorithm tunables? I think it would be definitely good to have
> that. I do not know how well that would scale?

>From what I can see it should not be too difficult to implement a node
mask constraining those activities.

> Some of these requirements come from whether we use NUMA or HMM-CDM.
> We prefer NUMA and it meets the above requirements quite well.

Great.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>