On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 7:18 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I > cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for > future reference. > > On Tue 28-02-23 21:20:57, Frank van der Linden via Lsf-pc wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM > > Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management > > To: <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I propose this discussion topic for LSF/MM/BPF. > > > > In a world where memory topologies are becoming more complicated, is > > it still possible to have an approach where the kernel deals with > > memory management to everyone's satisfaction? > > > > The answer seemingly has been "not quite", since madvise and mempolicy > > exist. With things like cxl.mem coming into existence, a heterogeneous > > memory setup will become more common. > > > > The number of madvise options keeps growing. There is now a > > process_madvise, and there are proposed extensions for the mempolicy > > systemcalls, allowing one process to control the policy of another, as > > well. There are exported cgroup interfaces to control reclaim, and > > discussions have taken place on explicit control reclaim-as-demotion > > to other nodes. > > > > Is this the right approach? If so, would it be a good idea to > > optionally provide BPF hooks to control certain behavior, and let > > userspace direct things even more? Is that even possible, > > performance-wise? Would it make sense to be able to influence the > > MGLRU generation process in a more direct way if needed? > > > > I think a discussion about these points would be interesting. Or, I > > should say, further discussion. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Frank > > _______________________________________________ Please allow me to cc bpf mailing list for visibility. The idea seems interesting. Hao
