From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shuah@kernel.org (Shuah Khan) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:30:59 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: add NUMA emulation support In-Reply-To: <20180907083452.GC19621@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180824230559.32336-1-shuah@kernel.org> <20180828174011.GE20375@arm.com> <20180829110802.GD10349@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180905064252.GW14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180907083452.GC19621@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/07/2018 02:34 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-09-18 15:53:34, Shuah Khan wrote: > [...] >> A few critical allocations could be satisfied and root cgroup prevails. It is not the >> intent to have exclusivity at the expense of the kernel. > > Well, it is not "few critical allocations". It can be a lot of > memory. Basically any GFP_KERNEL allocation. So how exactly you expect > this to work when you cannot estimate how much > memory will kernel eat? > >> >> This feature will allow a way to configure cpusets on non-NUMA for workloads that can >> benefit from the reservation and isolation that is available within the constraints of >> exclusive cpuset policies. > > AFAIR this was the first approach Google took for the memory isolation > and they moved over to memory cgroups. In addition to isolation, being able to reserve a block instead is one of the issues I am looking to address. Unfortunately memory cgroups won't address that issue. I would recommend to talk to > those guys bebfore you introduce potentially a lot of code that will not > really work for the workload you indend it for. > Will you be able to point me to a good contact at Goggle and/or some pointers on finding discussion on the memory isolation. My searches on lkml came up short, thanks, -- Shuah