From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f200.google.com (mail-io0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E99D6B02F2 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io0-f200.google.com with SMTP id a103so191624582ioj.8 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f15si20266207iod.240.2017.04.24.07.00.41 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 07:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:00:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] RFC - Coherent Device Memory (Not for inclusion) In-Reply-To: <1492993241.2418.2.camel@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20170419075242.29929-1-bsingharora@gmail.com> <1492651508.1015.2.camel@gmail.com> <1492993241.2418.2.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Balbir Singh Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jglisse@redhat.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, mhocko@kernel.org, arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vbabka@suse.cz 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: email@kvack.org