Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp4300969yba; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGB9FZ51LaIwFuIZ9xg1ZInGNm6R6XxLQoVQCKAkEzXjZOP1yOemNVcFohFBenr0l1rVBK X-Received: by 2002:a62:76c1:: with SMTP id r184mr87313643pfc.229.1555515652972; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1555515652; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jXAQMjQf4IeFJlglLMb/wz9aTMBE1kT+Z13qXUjl5wLA/QSuJKLadpEs8r199FSyUo 7/+qkC6QodG0FMC164P/VShUsD4nMVBdTfCjFcOwjjAETwlHV8yrQzJXM9cOlF5xm8cS ETLbw8AbyTyihm1bPRXOfKvgevxXqbduN61WzncCXoIMOLn6dhBfYcDfcP+79TRiJ6uC IrsMWWL8P50BYr5gSgIZIkI97GfV2rJtdgoHEHOaLXtmrfxxPucuZE3n3BpGeifGlJWl D7A3YLVbx2JGsqiZVGoTupH/s0P9NuCwm/Cm+da0/SJCLKjF3tMrJnSQpig1lE8xDFjS 2qjg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=o/2klouQRbkTrBQxRFAmTnWA/zIk/OTOCQ7hor2s13s=; b=Zw94ZVPEn6TzPQhCxiGJj2TuwDnqMnFeqF3t42w0i9BXYI0/8hWyEFMzUrDo2AYOrA r2+UlMtynmnb2Xb8kU3VEJaevF2tt1DOJYfgpOY2wzfQAv4MveFgEEudfdU4TabrDFkY pqBAWideO/5N8IW31pJqSTILtYHbnRWdgp9Wl26S3YivzUcXC2MwICbGlwB6UoxyC7nX nFYAmY4ME8wccTN+nKnVTY65WBfW8GOuOiqyyNddEpz9Fif2JLh+fMbBFpuGNF5sKHEk HJjA6VaZlIqVgeU+NqMTh4iUXs82m4mChOqL78Mkpp2F8HjsBffBIg85MGU04o2K+6Oc jOsQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j65si15444608plb.159.2019.04.17.08.40.37; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732715AbfDQPj1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:39:27 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38064 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732659AbfDQPj0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:39:26 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABD6ADAA; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:39:23 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Keith Busch Cc: Dave Hansen , Yang Shi , mgorman@techsingularity.net, riel@surriel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, fan.du@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, ziy@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node Message-ID: <20190417153923.GO5878@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1554955019-29472-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190412084702.GD13373@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190416074714.GD11561@dhcp22.suse.cz> <876768ad-a63a-99c3-59de-458403f008c4@linux.alibaba.com> <20190417092318.GG655@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190417152345.GB4786@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190417152345.GB4786@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 17-04-19 09:23:46, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:23:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 16-04-19 14:22:33, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > Keith Busch had a set of patches to let you specify the demotion order > > > via sysfs for fun. The rules we came up with were: > > > > I am not a fan of any sysfs "fun" > > I'm hung up on the user facing interface, but there should be some way a > user decides if a memory node is or is not a migrate target, right? Why? Or to put it differently, why do we have to start with a user interface at this stage when we actually barely have any real usecases out there? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs