On Fri 10-11-23 22:42:39, Gregory Price wrote: [...] > If I can ask, do you think it would be out of line to propose a major > refactor to mempolicy to enable external task's the ability to change a > running task's mempolicy *as well as* a cgroup-wide mempolicy component? No, I actually think this is a reasonable idea. pidfd_setmempolicy is a generally useful extension. The mempolicy code is heavily current task based and there might be some challenges but I believe this will a) improve the code base and b) allow more usecases. That being said, I still believe that a cgroup based interface is a much better choice over a global one. Cpusets seem to be a good fit as the controller does control memory placement wrt NUMA interfaces. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
