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;
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:49:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>, corbet@lwn.net,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] proc: Add a new isolated /proc/pid/mempolicy type.
Message-ID: <YzLVTxGHgYp3Es4t@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20220926091033.340-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <YzF3aaLvEvFhTQa3@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <24b20953-eca9-eef7-8e60-301080a17d2d@bytedance.com>
 <YzGya2Q3iuWS2WdM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <7ac9abce-4458-982b-6c04-f9569a78c0da@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ac9abce-4458-982b-6c04-f9569a78c0da@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 27-09-22 11:20:54, Abel Wu wrote:
[...]
> > > Btw.in order to add per-thread-group mempolicy, is it possible to add
> > > mempolicy in mm_struct?
> > 
> > I dunno. This would make the mempolicy interface even more confusing.
> > Per mm behavior makes a lot of sense but we already do have per-thread
> > semantic so I would stick to it rather than introducing a new semantic.
> > 
> > Why is this really important?
> 
> We want soft control on memory footprint of background jobs by applying
> NUMA preferences when necessary, so the impact on different NUMA nodes
> can be managed to some extent. These NUMA preferences are given by the
> control panel, and it might not be suitable to overwrite the tasks with
> specific memory policies already (or vice versa).

Maybe the answer is somehow implicit but I do not really see any
argument for the per thread-group semantic here. In other words why a
new interface has to cover more than the local [sg]et_mempolicy?
I can see convenience as one potential argument. Also if there is a
requirement to change the policy in atomic way then this would require a
single syscall.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs