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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
