Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri 28-10-22 07:22:27, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Thu 27-10-22 17:31:35, Huang, Ying wrote: > [...] >> >> I think that it's possible for different processes have different >> >> requirements. >> >> >> >> - Some processes don't care about where the memory is placed, prefer >> >> local, then fall back to remote if no free space. >> >> >> >> - Some processes want to avoid cross-socket traffic, bind to nodes of >> >> local socket. >> >> >> >> - Some processes want to avoid to use slow memory, bind to fast memory >> >> node only. >> > >> > Yes, I do understand that. Do you have any specific examples in mind? >> > [...] >> >> Sorry, I don't have specific examples. > > OK, then let's stop any complicated solution right here then. Let's > start simple with a per-mm flag to disable demotion of an address > space. I'm not a big fan of per-mm flag. Because we don't have users for that too and it needs to add ABI too. > Should there ever be a real demand for a more fine grained solution > let's go further but I do not think we want a half baked solution > without real usecases. I'm OK to ignore per-task (and missing per-process) memory policy support for now. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
