From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F31723D7E3 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:49:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.222.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771958966; cv=none; b=TcPqU4+a5bBhSmMXS8AD4vbxT3dME77Xao6UfO1qHdqCORlz5T8eTL6D1hjWzCZfKIi1FgeKYj3itS2Q7mCgpKYt1v5ungVS7geQBhF8Be3AeCuFXN8fxTQmSqj1eZRSNCkH9sfJ2bK6hyC7/ygr8c7DWAmmv4fzpmZNByBHKqY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771958966; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k+k/ky5K4U9YDjJn6omM+gNVT1kvEpYyJXBxCe7iuvY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OPSzMx9rPRP9JNeWkmVWYbIRF6oPs2XYYafuFQZ70olBkTbnMxILVG7h25WffwWcCEglMNKroufhBh2fGqADHizWRpNuhCEzciir/h7FSnEd8JUu9bCkhWerhkWKFl8UUSiILxMbg/mOmBGsm79mUp24X5LBLi93JWjBoTypMLc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gourry.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gourry.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gourry.net header.i=@gourry.net header.b=icVbHHVB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.222.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gourry.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gourry.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gourry.net header.i=@gourry.net header.b="icVbHHVB" Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8cb5c9ba82bso936890385a.2 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:49:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gourry.net; s=google; t=1771958964; x=1772563764; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jVC2sVLMOxnBh5X5m0M42esgcaqLVi1+yt0xbhnz3dk=; b=icVbHHVBEEJhfl/ty9MkmsXGatTK5dKtkU3CSyFAlyN7zwofX0D1+9E4XkbPiYNTaQ ABo9gLMM1jZHBosM+kZsNsqIF3pw+rGMmgIrr6uWAHUSbr5vU3HZoBAkiazVWW8YOJMk 2rPCl5Qt6dsSS0BP6+/Rnt04+2MZweqXaS8HBX1o3aL18J9Dr8IjnwT3d2SUMXmQ4c7Y 1QrbRPy6EzyiKcelVwAP5JYc20lagSMPQQQA01Vxnql9X9ZN/dVCPVzO667NtWiilgcP afu0Sn1Z05Z4Re3X/sitNrXClncyBASH2584Ij5NJQev4Vu8/BM/tlZtK+JTYjC2nXlF q8Zg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1771958964; x=1772563764; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jVC2sVLMOxnBh5X5m0M42esgcaqLVi1+yt0xbhnz3dk=; b=u08YPwS7AjEAE7WWtYGJc31v1+0+ElKRqqYRw4mfwd1XeJIUoAUo7SpeW9QASJXL5l 9wy1/WtyUb6cFiUlPMN2t3jtHZU3zEz0cUkMh3Z1/Xp+FzzTjP0N0Ls80TRXnmMEYo26 j1nW6A5IxnF30/JSOGRce+mBxqf5x6P/gl+MlJ7Nj1t9GeAPnC3vCwdxX5HPrzJJx2ht WXkKwoFy/AB33WtpIGBsFZdAAG5wpQaCYUMzvK8wFcyjw4LHjNco/3iVtkqIWzESqF9Q C/OQBzAB4oQp1InROhqEKusiUb61VII3UmpvUBsYkKpYw8lszNKWj40SuDBo6i54Nql0 zcRg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCULYjDXC2c1djiFeMBRlr64n2bA7RF/8y2gpup2RGLQC+6QIh+KSa+1aRaU5JNEcYDLJlMWqdbO@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyHUOQZRLEGB3JLos4JoF+YfG/N0k3cuhTkPM72O//lUl4ALk3f ETz/BUGrIL1bIqk6AxFygfY98srPI7nEDhzjsTfubyAoTx9Xo3h0j5sc9yrKOclsnnA= X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aK1g7VYlWLLEpnwqAGAFwXzqqMVgpeNmbhd/rXSUZVYXBOMzBHCPkj/BVY8g9L YqPfrf7h/YoD1wpTu06c1BpyJi8YGY+jk+ym9+68RtNAQiTFbHZG6ei9aZzHiooFiH4sRmWKriw 1gMQi0yIu2cxlXcLnnCOY0M/lvy7pjNhWrbV6ZAoETgtsEAFlmp0q6XFfr6ENGDyO71d8p7/xQR MY2bR/vKX7mVSVnJqlGckCJ8kq1wzSVaCoCZHSefsrm03t+lYF8zZ1INfi03AKMD5DP2anjbH9s Em02dG53KTHcG2EW4sImvN1AtD6/BKXGBWZ8W8364t13AvPPQ6oQnh2EgqWj541ey20mJKtmCm1 Ui3GrlrnkTOfxEd7mKMsBLVyyuw1QvFhjTsYfrrui47BcMfERlFzAe5TxcbJMFYjlvEK6RWHxxd P77uC9zBFvr3FYk0lOZHSx75+st/vraWkHv4gbxZMHYk03cT5hjxUVOAousMA/Fpc18FAPRxpHz VUVoWEw5A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:280c:b0:8cb:5442:d537 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8cb8c9e005dmr1650957585a.12.1771958964121; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F (pool-96-255-20-138.washdc.ftas.verizon.net. [96.255.20.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-8cb8d122906sm1023135085a.51.2026.02.24.10.49.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:49:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:49:21 -0500 From: Gregory Price To: Joshua Hahn Cc: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Kaiyang Zhao , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Waiman Long , Chen Ridong , Tejun Heo , Michal Koutny , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Qi Zheng , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] mm/memcontrol: Make memcg limits tier-aware Message-ID: References: <20260224161357.2622501-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260224161357.2622501-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 08:13:56AM -0800, Joshua Hahn wrote: > ... snip ... Just injecting a few points here (disclosure: I have been in the development loop for this feature) > > > Otherwise promotions would make sure to that we have the most active > > memory in the top tier. > Yes / No. This makes the assumption that you always want this. Barring a minimum Quality of Service mechanism (as Joshua explains) this reduces the usefulness of a secondary tier of memory. Services will just prefer not to be deployed to these kinds of machines because the performance variance is too high. > > > Is this typical in real life configurations? > > I would say so. I think that the two examples above are realistic > scenarios that cloud providers and hyperscalers might face on tiered systems. > The answer is unequivocally yes. Lacking tier-awareness is actually a huge blocker for deploying mixed workloads on large, dense memory systems with multiple tiers (2+). Technically we're already at 4-ish tiers: DDR, CXL, ZSWAP, SWAP. We have zswap/swap controls in cgroups already, we just lack that same control for coherent memory tiers. This tries to use the existing nobs (max/high/low/min) to do what they already do - just proportionally. ~Gregory