From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83C6C43444 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0DE2075D for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728431AbfAAJPA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jan 2019 04:15:00 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:53998 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726654AbfAAJPA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jan 2019 04:15:00 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x019E65l047368 for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 04:14:58 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pr43mjp98-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 01 Jan 2019 04:14:58 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:56 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:51 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x019EoB356426542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:50 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F84EA4051; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583BAA4040; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skywalker.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.85.88.250]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 1 Jan 2019 09:14:46 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: emacs 26.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Fengguang Wu , Andrew Morton Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Fan Du , Fengguang Wu , kvm@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Yao Yuan , Peng Dong , Huang Ying , Liu Jingqi , Dong Eddie , Dave Hansen , Zhang Yi , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 10/21] mm: build separate zonelist for PMEM and DRAM node In-Reply-To: <20181226133351.644607371@intel.com> References: <20181226131446.330864849@intel.com> <20181226133351.644607371@intel.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 14:44:41 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19010109-0016-0000-0000-0000023E2131 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19010109-0017-0000-0000-0000329721CA Message-Id: <87sgyc7n9a.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-01_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=574 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901010085 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Fengguang Wu writes: > From: Fan Du > > When allocate page, DRAM and PMEM node should better not fall back to > each other. This allows migration code to explicitly control which type > of node to allocate pages from. > > With this patch, PMEM NUMA node can only be used in 2 ways: > - migrate in and out > - numactl Can we achieve this using nodemask? That way we don't tag nodes with different properties such as DRAM/PMEM. We can then give the flexibilility to the device init code to add the new memory nodes to the right nodemask -aneesh