Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/mempolicy: introduce package-aware weighted interleave

[Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 20:46:16 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net> wrote:

Hello Gregory,

Thanks for your review and feedback.

> I think you are over-complicating the explanation and that's making it
> hard for folks to reason about this.

You are right. I will keep my explanations focused on the key points
from here on, and the next cover letter will be written that way as
well.

> My best understanding here is for multi-socket systems, weighted
> interleave as-designed is inherently sub-optimal for scaled workloads
> that utilize multi-socket ("package") memory resources (DRAM, CXL...)

Your summary is correct. That is the problem this series addresses.

> I think there is also an assumption that total memory utilization is
> less than the total capacity - otherwise some of the assumptions here
> break, but that comes with the general weighted interleave story.

Your assumption is correct. It is the same as the existing weighted
interleave: when the nodes are full, memory is allocated from other
nodes.

> I'm getting back from vacation, I will take a closer look this week.

Thank you. I look forward to your comments.

Thanks again for your time and review.

Rakie Kim