On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 04:15:21PM -0800, Frank van der Linden wrote: > I propose this discussion topic for LSF/MM/BPF. > > In a world where memory topologies are becoming more complicated, is > it still possible to have an approach where the kernel deals with > memory management to everyone's satisfaction? > > The answer seemingly has been "not quite", since madvise and mempolicy > exist. With things like cxl.mem coming into existence, a heterogeneous > memory setup will become more common. > > The number of madvise options keeps growing. There is now a > process_madvise, and there are proposed extensions for the mempolicy > systemcalls, allowing one process to control the policy of another, as > well. There are exported cgroup interfaces to control reclaim, and > discussions have taken place on explicit control reclaim-as-demotion > to other nodes. > > Is this the right approach? If so, would it be a good idea to > optionally provide BPF hooks to control certain behavior, and let > userspace direct things even more? Is that even possible, > performance-wise? Would it make sense to be able to influence the > MGLRU generation process in a more direct way if needed? > > I think a discussion about these points would be interesting. Or, I > should say, further discussion. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > > - Frank > Surely userfaultfd is part of this equation too? I definitely think this is a useful converastion to have, in any case!
