For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
future reference.
On Tue 28-02-23 21:20:57, Frank van der Linden via Lsf-pc wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Frank van der Linden <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM
> Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management
> To: <[email protected]>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Lsf-pc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsf-pc
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:18:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
> cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
> future reference.
Hm, I found it by searching for 'lsf' on lore.kernel.org in the linux-mm
archive.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAPTztWYAiroY3E8pwB+rnPGA1K9HLhkpQp1Gy9C1dEuS1FhWGg@mail.gmail.com/
Here are the other topics I found:
Eliminate vmap/vmalloc lock contention
Reducing direct map fragmentation
Stable process
Phyrs discussion
Live migration over CXL
SMDK MM changes for CXL
Sunsetting buffer_heads
HGM for hugetlbfs
Reducing zombie memcgs
Swap abstraction / native zswap
SLOB/SLAB allocator removal + future SLUB improvements
Session for CXL memory
Memory profiling using code tagging
Cloud storage optimizations
Flexible orders for anonymous folios
VM Memory Overcommit
State of The Page
Userspace control of memory management
IOMAP conversion status update
DAMON Updates and Future Plans
Make BPF memory allocator more robust
Virtual Machine Memory Passthrough
Scalable Pagefaults
Single Owner Memory
CXL Fabric Manager Architecture
Using hardware counters to determine hot/cold pages
Sframe: An orc like stack unwinder
Mm docs
Tracing mapped pages for quicker boot performance
(not all of these are the exact titles used by the authors)
On Fri 28-04-23 15:54:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:18:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
> > cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
> > future reference.
>
> Hm, I found it by searching for 'lsf' on lore.kernel.org in the linux-mm
> archive.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAPTztWYAiroY3E8pwB+rnPGA1K9HLhkpQp1Gy9C1dEuS1FhWGg@mail.gmail.com/
I have tried to search for the msg-id via lore.kernel.org
(https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=CAPTztWY49XP-7GDHuvV2fNDCeJzd0vAac6n%2BrJ9KfWr6cyZ5ww%40mail.gmail.com)
as well as the subject
(https://lore.kernel.org/?q=userspace+control+of+memory+management).
I've had the email in my lsf-pc mailbox but that is not archived at lore
and we are trying to prepare schedule with links to the archive so that
people can find associated disucssions easier.
> Here are the other topics I found:
This matches my list as well
> Memory profiling using code tagging
Except for this one which somehow escaped my attention. Now added and
scheduled. Thanks Matthew!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 7:18 AM Michal Hocko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
> cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
> future reference.
>
> On Tue 28-02-23 21:20:57, Frank van der Linden via Lsf-pc wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Frank van der Linden <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM
> > Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management
> > To: <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
Please allow me to cc bpf mailing list for visibility. The idea seems
interesting.
Hao