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:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:47:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     ?????? <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        Michal Koutn? <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v8 1/2] sched/numa: introduce per-cgroup NUMA
 locality info
Message-ID: <20200221154706.GI18400@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <fe56d99d-82e0-498c-ae44-f7cde83b5206@linux.alibaba.com>
 <cde13472-46c0-7e17-175f-4b2ba4d8148a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200214151048.GL14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200217115810.GA3420@suse.de>
 <881deb50-163e-442a-41ec-b375cc445e4d@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200217141616.GB3420@suse.de>
 <114519ab-4e9e-996a-67b8-4f5fcecba72a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200221142010.GT3420@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200221142010.GT3420@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:20:10PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> I fully acknowledge that this may have value for sysadmins and may be a
> good enough reason to merge it for environments that typically build and
> configure their own kernels. I doubt that general distributions would
> enable it but that's a guess.

OTOH, many sysadmins seem to 'rely' on BPF scripts and other such fancy
things these days.

 ( of course, we have the open question on what happens when we break
   one of those BPF 'important' scripts ... )

My main reservation with this patch is that it exposes, to userspace, an
ABI that is very hard to interpret and subject to implementation
details.

So while it can be disabled; people who have it enabled might suddenly
complain when we change the meaning/interpretation/whatever of these
magic numbers.

Michael; you seem to have ignored the tracepoint / BPF angle earlier in
this discussion; that is not something that could/would work for you?