Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1617642417.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
 <CALvZod7StYJCPnWRNLnYQV8S5CBLtE0w4r2rH-wZzNs9jGJSRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkrPD6s9vRy89cgQ36e+1cs6JbLqV84se7nnvP9MByizXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvZod69-GcS2W57hAUvjbWBCD6B2dTeVsFbtpQuZOM2DphwCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbLzkoce41b-pJ5x=6nRhex_xBdC-+cYACBw9HKtA87H71A-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkoce41b-pJ5x=6nRhex_xBdC-+cYACBw9HKtA87H71A-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:03:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4vYiT-OnQ8gmhs+NurMV+kSFptMig4FJS7RAAcJJeDNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Manage the top tier memory in a tiered memory
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:50 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]

> >
> > The low and min limits have semantics similar to the v1's soft limit
> > for this situation i.e. letting the low priority job occupy top tier
> > memory and depending on reclaim to take back the excess top tier
> > memory use of such jobs.
>
> I don't get why low priority jobs can *not* use top tier memory?

I am saying low priority jobs can use top tier memory. The only
difference is to limit them upfront (using limits) or reclaim from
them later (using min/low/soft-limit).

> I can
> think of it may incur latency overhead for high priority jobs. If it
> is not allowed, it could be restricted by cpuset without introducing
> in any new interfaces.
>
> I'm supposed the memory utilization could be maximized by allowing all
> jobs allocate memory from all applicable nodes, then let reclaimer (or
> something new if needed)

Most probably something new as we do want to consider unevictable
memory as well.

> do the job to migrate the memory to proper
> nodes by time. We could achieve some kind of balance between memory
> utilization and resource isolation.
>

Tradeoff between utilization and isolation should be decided by the user/admin.