Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:42:48 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fan Du <fan.du@intel.com>, Yao Yuan <yuan.yao@intel.com>,
        Peng Dong <dongx.peng@intel.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Liu Jingqi <jingqi.liu@intel.com>,
        Dong Eddie <eddie.dong@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 00/21] PMEM NUMA node and hotness
 accounting/migration
Message-ID: <20190110164248.GO31793@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20181227203158.GO16738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181228050806.ewpxtwo3fpw7h3lq@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
 <20181228084105.GQ16738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181228094208.7lgxhha34zpqu4db@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
 <20181228121515.GS16738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181228133111.zromvopkfcg3m5oy@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
 <20181228195224.GY16738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190102122110.00000206@huawei.com>
 <20190108145256.GX31793@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190110155317.GB4394@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190110155317.GB4394@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 10-01-19 10:53:17, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 02-01-19 12:21:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So ideally I'd love this set to head in a direction that helps me tick off
> > > at least some of the above usecases and hopefully have some visibility on
> > > how to address the others moving forwards,
> > 
> > Is it sufficient to have such a memory marked as movable (aka only have
> > ZONE_MOVABLE)? That should rule out most of the kernel allocations and
> > it fits the "balance by migration" concept.
> 
> This would not work for GPU, GPU driver really want to be in total
> control of their memory yet sometimes they want to migrate some part
> of the process to their memory.

But that also means that GPU doesn't really fit the model discussed
here, right? I thought HMM is the way to manage such a memory.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs