Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/10/21 12:26 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:

Of those two, I agree with the second one, it would be tricky to implement
but the first one is less clear. This is based on an assumption. If prctl
exists to enable/disable NUMA baalancing, it's possible that someone
else would want to control NUMA balancing on a cgroup basis instead of
globally which would run into the same type of concerns -- different
semantics depending on the global tunable.


Hi!

You talk about the "semantics" of NUMA balancing between global, cgroup and process. While I read the kernel doc "NUMA Memory Policy", it occur to me that we may have a "NUMA Balancing Policy".

Since you are the reviewer of CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING. I would like to discuss the need for introducing "NUMA Balancing Policy" with you. Is this worth doing?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux