On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:50 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
