From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03D8913ADD; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="UElFh/9i" Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2693E2D65; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 02:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B225921981; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:02:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1699524143; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wHwA8ZjuKs5PsD64751HJy5aT/pjtH4Nv0BUUWN4lQY=; b=UElFh/9iV0/RSdMRUc5MEEhCKXNAelQdQYVt8/v22jXg6gDCngN5J/EL2liPDkXGIfdrBY LNAKiIgMv2OuKlTJcmLQy2YF+xbKlXK3DV+a+zCJQVdBis8fmgTrD7WMN1UzOP7tXFPvAv tBLNXSzFZzDP5PzwfX1C4SqSD1y/xUA= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EBA138E5; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id gL9LJS+uTGVVZgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 09 Nov 2023 10:02:23 +0000 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:02:23 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Gregory Price Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, corbet@lwn.net, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com, muchun.song@linux.dev, Gregory Price Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] memcg weighted interleave mempolicy control Message-ID: References: <20231109002517.106829-1-gregory.price@memverge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@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: <20231109002517.106829-1-gregory.price@memverge.com> On Wed 08-11-23 19:25:14, Gregory Price wrote: > This patchset implements weighted interleave and adds a new cgroup > sysfs entry: cgroup/memory.interleave_weights (excluded from root). Why have you chosen memory controler rather than cpuset controller? TBH I do not think memcg is the best fit because traditionally memcg accounts consumption rather than memory placement. This means that the memory is already allocated when it is charged for a memcg. On the other hand cpuset controller is the one to control the allocation placement so it would seem a better fit. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs