Hi Honggyu, On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 18:54:14 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:52:28 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:06:44 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:24:30 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:08:54 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@xxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > I can remove it, but I would like to have more discussion about this > > > issue. The current implementation allows only a single migration > > > target with "target_nid", but users might want to provide fall back > > > migration target nids. > > > > > > For example, if more than two CXL nodes exist in the system, users might > > > want to migrate cold pages to any CXL nodes. In such cases, we might > > > have to make "target_nid" accept comma separated node IDs. nodemask can > > > be better but we should provide a way to change the scanning order. > > > > > > I would like to hear how you think about this. > > > > Good point. I think we could later extend the sysfs file to receive the > > comma-separated numbers, or even mask. For simplicity, adding sysfs files > > dedicated for the different format of inputs could also be an option (e.g., > > target_nids_list, target_nids_mask). But starting from this single node as is > > now looks ok to me. > > If you think we can start from a single node, then I will keep it as is. > But are you okay if I change the same 'target_nid' to accept > comma-separated numbers later? Or do you want to introduce another knob > such as 'target_nids_list'? What about rename 'target_nid' to > 'target_nids' at the first place? I have no strong concern or opinion about this at the moment. Please feel free to renaming it to 'taget_nids' if you think that's better. [...] > Please note that I will be out of office this week so won't be able to > answer quickly. No problem, I hope you to take and enjoy your time :) Thanks, SJ [...]
