On 6/14/22 10:15 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > ... >> >> It could be simple tier0, tier1, tier2 numbering again, but the >> numbers now would mean something to the user. A rank tunable is no >> longer necessary. > > This feels like it might make tier assignments a bit less stable > and hence run into question of how to hook up accounting. Not my > area of expertise though, but it was put forward as one of the reasons > we didn't want hotplug to potentially end up shuffling other tiers > around. The desire was for a 'stable' entity. Can avoid that with > 'space' between them but then we sort of still have rank, just in a > form that makes updating it messy (need to create a new tier to do > it). > >> How about we do what is proposed here https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/7b72ccf4-f4ae-cb4e-f411-74d055482026@xxxxxxxxxxxxx The cgroup accounting patch posted here https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cover.1655242024.git.tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx looks at top tier accounting per cgroup and I am not sure what tier ID stability is expected for top tier accounting. -aneesh
