Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9961bda1-687a-a681-743e-7eb7b9f6f751@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:50:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        rientjes@google.com, yosryahmed@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        shakeelb@google.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        gthelen@google.com, a.manzanares@samsung.com,
        heekwon.p@samsung.com, gim.jongmin@samsung.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220416053902.68517-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20220417034932.jborenmvfbqrfhlj@offworld>
 <c1475d8e-3ad6-cdab-5cc9-b44fef998636@intel.com>
 <20220418164503.jfips3aiwhnlfjrq@offworld>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/migrate: export whether or not node is toptier in
 sysf
In-Reply-To: <20220418164503.jfips3aiwhnlfjrq@offworld>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/18/22 09:45, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 4/16/22 20:49, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> This allows userspace to know if the node is considered fast
>>> memory (with CPUs attached to it). While this can be already
>>> derived without a new file, this helps further encapsulate the
>>> concept.
>>
>> What is userspace supposed to *do* with this, though?
> 
> This came as a scratch to my own itch. I wanted to start testing
> more tiering patches overall that I see pop up, and wanted a way
> to differentiate the slow vs the fast memories in order to better
> configure workload(s) working set sizes beyond what is your typical
> grep MemTotal /proc/meminfo. If there is a better way I'm all
> for it.

But how does this help you?  Does it save you a few lines in a shell
script to find the nodes that have memory and CPUs?

>> Isn't it just asking for trouble to add (known) redundancy to the ABI?
>> It seems like a recipe for future inconsistency.
> 
> Perhaps. It was mostly about the fact that the notion of top tier
> could also change as technology evolves.

It seems like something arbitrary that everyone will just disagree on.
I think we should try to stick to cold, hard facts as must as possible
rather than trying to have the *kernel* dictate as a policy what is fast
versus slow.