lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC V2 03/12] mm: Change generic FALLBACK zonelist creation process
From
Date
On 01/30/2017 05:36 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Let's say we had a CDM node with 100x more RAM than the rest of the
>> system and it was just as fast as the rest of the RAM. Would we still
>> want it isolated like this? Or would we want a different policy?
>
> But then the other argument being, dont we want to keep this 100X more
> memory isolated for some special purpose to be utilized by specific
> applications ?

I was thinking that in this case, we wouldn't even want to bother with
having "system RAM" in the fallback lists. A device who got its memory
usage off by 1% could start to starve the rest of the system. A sane
policy in this case might be to isolate the "system RAM" from the device's.

>> Why do we need this hard-coded along with the cpuset stuff later in the
>> series. Doesn't taking a node out of the cpuset also take it out of the
>> fallback lists?
>
> There are two mutually exclusive approaches which are described in
> this patch series.
>
> (1) zonelist modification based approach
> (2) cpuset restriction based approach
>
> As mentioned in the cover letter,

Well, I'm glad you coded both of them up, but now that we have them how
to we pick which one to throw to the wolves? Or, do we just merge both
of them and let one bitrot? ;)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-31 02:57    [W:0.105 / U:13.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site