Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, weixugc@google.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
        tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, shy828301@gmail.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Node Weights and Weighted Interleave
In-Reply-To: <fe7ns7dvrhwp6o7fnn53wt7tuidsncjctgav4bdirwfmjxarne@3oyfe22mxc35>
        (Michal Hocko's message of "Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:28:11 +0100")
References: <20231031003810.4532-1-gregory.price@memverge.com>
        <rm43wgtlvwowjolzcf6gj4un4qac4myngxqnd2jwt5yqxree62@t66scnrruttc>
        <20231031152142.GA3029315@cmpxchg.org>
        <jgh5b5bm73qe7m3qmnsjo3drazgfaix3ycqmom5u6tfp6hcerj@ij4vftrutvrt>
        <87msvy6wn8.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
        <ivhxexthtfums73nkko6yoy635h3cpetv4sqaemrmqd5pbhpq6@6zrizaoxgdwi>
        <87il6k1y82.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
        <fe7ns7dvrhwp6o7fnn53wt7tuidsncjctgav4bdirwfmjxarne@3oyfe22mxc35>
Date:   Fri, 03 Nov 2023 15:10:37 +0800
Message-ID: <87jzqzz502.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Precedence: bulk

Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes:

> On Thu 02-11-23 14:11:09, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed 01-11-23 10:21:47, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes:
>> > [...]
>> >> > Well, I am not convinced about that TBH. Sure it is probably a good fit
>> >> > for this specific CXL usecase but it just doesn't fit into many others I
>> >> > can think of - e.g. proportional use of those tiers based on the
>> >> > workload - you get what you pay for.
>> >> 
>> >> For "pay", per my understanding, we need some cgroup based
>> >> per-memory-tier (or per-node) usage limit.  The following patchset is
>> >> the first step for that.
>> >> 
>> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cover.1655242024.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com/
>> >
>> > Why do we need a sysfs interface if there are plans for cgroup API?
>> 
>> They are for different target.  The cgroup API proposed here is to
>> constrain the DRAM usage in a system with DRAM and CXL memory.  The less
>> you pay, the less DRAM and more CXL memory you use.
>
> Right, but why the usage distribution requires its own interface and
> cannot be combined with the access control part of it?

Per my understanding, they are orthogonal.

Weighted-interleave is a memory allocation policy, other memory
allocation policies include local first, etc.

Usage limit is to constrain the usage of specific memory types
(e.g. DRAM) for a cgroup.  It can be used together with local first
policy and some other memory allocation policy.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying