On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:50 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat 20-01-24 10:09:32, Lance Yang wrote: > [...] > > Hey Michal, > > > > Thanks for your suggestion! > > > > It seems that the implementation should try but not too hard aligns well > > with my desired behavior. > > The problem I have with this semantic is that it is really hard to > define and then stick with. Our implementation might change over time > and what somebody considers good ATM might turn int "trying harder than > I wanted" later on. > > > Non-blocking in general is also a great idea. > > Perhaps in the future, we can add a MADV_F_COLLAPSE_NOBLOCK > > flag for scenarios where latency is extremely critical. > > Non blocking semantic is much easier to define and maintain. The actual > allocation/compaction implementation might change as well over time but > the userspace at least knows that the request will not block waiting for > any required resources. I appreciate your insights! It makes sense that a non-blocking semantic is easier to define and maintain, providing userspace with the certainty that requests won’t be blocked. Thanks, Lance > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
