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, 25 Apr 2019 08:37:27 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Fan Du <fan.du@intel.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com,
        dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
        xishi.qiuxishi@alibaba-inc.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] New fallback workflow for heterogeneous memory
 system
Message-ID: <20190425063727.GJ12751@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1556155295-77723-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1556155295-77723-1-git-send-email-fan.du@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 25-04-19 09:21:30, Fan Du wrote:
[...]
> However PMEM has different characteristics from DRAM,
> the more reasonable or desirable fallback style would be:
> DRAM node 0 -> DRAM node 1 -> PMEM node 2 -> PMEM node 3.
> When DRAM is exhausted, try PMEM then. 

Why and who does care? NUMA is fundamentally about memory nodes with
different access characteristics so why is PMEM any special?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs