-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 7/1/20 7:24 AM, Zi Yan wrote: > On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:31, Dave Hansen wrote: >>> BTW is this proposal only for systems having multi-tiers of >>> memory? Can a multi-node DRAM-only system take advantage of >>> this proposal? For example I have a system with two DRAM nodes >>> running two jobs hardwalled to each node. For each job the >>> other node is kind of low-tier memory. If I can describe the >>> per-job demotion paths then these jobs can take advantage of >>> this proposal during occasional peaks. >> I don't see any reason it could not work there. There would just >> need to be a way to set up a different demotion path policy that >> what was done here. > We might need a different threshold (or GFP flag) for allocating > new pages in remote node for demotion. Otherwise, we could see > scenarios like: two nodes in a system are almost full and Node A > is trying to demote some pages to Node B, which triggers page > demotion from Node B to Node A. I've always assumed that migration cycles would be illegal since it's so hard to guarantee forward reclaim progress with them in place. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJe/J5kAAoJEGg1lTBwyZKw0TMP/1kufbxVGSY331xhOL/QHEoE Tsuo62l2CJ/CbhIBKzac24k1Rf9AiyxUukkVZfa32c2Kf03XWjUNiWVuRPSTMlfT E0h2llYYbUBs+eVeT4Ksz4xkThKHlXPNuS1OMhuSVbjhieiPqp3J0blohXaWdkSa DBgpiqNlVPD7V0NIA5qfsumZRrOJDdJNdLKbjI7GBVprEHu5N/X0NQpakPErtcka kSz7Hjv5x+fbd3rxc2QhrnegBE1oMQGUl14nf/kIKnKuZV2WIdabaxrYWrQBvALa Z2sfcBRU41/SKvz/syCwJpSr1XkfsjNKvDMlkflXndMTzzP4/rhAyDX5Wzw99Aws zz6UmRhZrFOudq4R5jpOqJiDfn1RGYA8mH04bEOPjEgGRiXaxi5Sp6fh/BQG5p7n QESH0LVHEhg8h+10FWZ5VYU1UwMIdzolBI8Y8VlJDjeSpzSFyyDFP7Re3OyQRfmb ij5ThSozo35t+zEYS4yofgPMZKJ/aZ+EySEF5LZsipKC2RsRuFFpaDSOOGXZKLXq G/R9g2LeLZK6iNNlCrIGjeAAKN8UZzOMJwapYV8czt0HTQ2vRjuDE1Y2TRD6gjXI x6vUCfFyOEJw4l3mca+Sb1pmFcaiXBRxBrat6q23Ls+eCDMIaTgx5wA7NEeq0Td7 yShQbtIvJKRubiscJlZ/ =MjgB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
