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:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:18:16 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>
Cc:     lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] Fwd: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory
 management
Message-ID: <ZEvVqMtnU142GMEU@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <CAPTztWYAiroY3E8pwB+rnPGA1K9HLhkpQp1Gy9C1dEuS1FhWGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPTztWY49XP-7GDHuvV2fNDCeJzd0vAac6n+rJ9KfWr6cyZ5ww@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPTztWY49XP-7GDHuvV2fNDCeJzd0vAac6n+rJ9KfWr6cyZ5ww@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

For some reason I cannot find this email in my linux-mm inbox and I
cannot find it in any archives so let me add linux-mm and lkml again for
future reference.

On Tue 28-02-23 21:20:57, Frank van der Linden via Lsf-pc wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@google.com>
> Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM
> Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] userspace control of memory management
> To: <linux-mm@kvack.org>
> 
> 
> I propose this discussion topic for LSF/MM/BPF.
> 
> In a world where memory topologies are becoming more complicated, is
> it still possible to have an approach where the kernel deals with
> memory management to everyone's satisfaction?
> 
> The answer seemingly has been "not quite", since madvise and mempolicy
> exist. With things like cxl.mem coming into existence, a heterogeneous
> memory setup will become more common.
> 
> The number of madvise options keeps growing. There is now a
> process_madvise, and there are proposed extensions for the mempolicy
> systemcalls, allowing one process to control the policy of another, as
> well. There are exported cgroup interfaces to control reclaim, and
> discussions have taken place on explicit control reclaim-as-demotion
> to other nodes.
> 
> Is this the right approach? If so, would it be a good idea to
> optionally provide BPF hooks to control certain behavior, and let
> userspace direct things even more? Is that even possible,
> performance-wise? Would it make sense to be able to influence the
> MGLRU generation process in a more direct way if needed?
> 
> I think a discussion about these points would be interesting. Or, I
> should say, further discussion.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Lsf-pc mailing list
> Lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsf-pc

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs