From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) (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 B8BA624BC1D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741185507; cv=none; b=bDe+SRyMtjTDHG22MWS3BbXNeIIB9GA/t9xefMaaqJEHOnlL2mefL1JDPaJC+d22om2FuomoacxIqeocbNFWJotFNhrcp58QXLv7NnzrmJP/q2lE18JLI2bsEXifWQrFdOa5ZnZot40VfzD7j/OhF0ZTsH9RHNoGIQl7HJ8xvY0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741185507; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BqeLWYpmzx08akl6bVj7sB5B/GwdFFEes1rYrt+d1vU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ujW8LvtbyOMqE9FgHK/oj6UkLH/nP5JAkBKg9kSJokJ/akcgAlGp2JvrBl32Jzjz32bXZphk6wZAaCX+k/XICbb+YQX07/7Rtz+CrQgMVlt6F6xAV+ek+mQFqiUmNmQXu1Y+m5JfR3YkgHzayhIIKpPfFPMXMWaNpHxBX1Iag1Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.cmu.edu; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=andrew.cmu.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cs.cmu.edu header.i=@cs.cmu.edu header.b=QNyf5eB2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.cmu.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=andrew.cmu.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cs.cmu.edu header.i=@cs.cmu.edu header.b="QNyf5eB2" Received: by mail-qt1-f171.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-474fba180cfso19037281cf.3 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 06:38:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.cmu.edu; s=google-2021; t=1741185503; x=1741790303; 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=Ka/zF6Ds/g/dxAZATcvUkbSWy5jstJ9gLeo9m4izlug=; b=QNyf5eB2mqnQQeMpgkW87arbJgUtBEc7JWfQd6ZrCE1OKOEnIsCxlYQe5kgl7a5ilu XDmJ1mTraa+K0plwSwHUIuj+aLWBotfgSiLcMfT1OtNIg+vZRxN19amUAsXCKZRj2Hbv g7uFMr7UrUrnuOmVC2qTouuHc5PYMNisNyIBFXI/DgNRK6LJ7kfjug1uFy0krYnG7kuG ElsX6MGo+aRMMuKUThCRIu1ur6FZpJp0Sa6yAtb+TQuxGY2zLW24kEYIdZQzwX7ITKYk 2rYOV0Ftx4EoLDzgaMDJ13w55D6mv4CVdZQva18GNi/F52M46Ia95g9QrCEoQmxiR82B Bqiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1741185503; x=1741790303; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Ka/zF6Ds/g/dxAZATcvUkbSWy5jstJ9gLeo9m4izlug=; b=d3r4SRQKIzEEAJDdPGJeyaLs+tO5M5rn3dSrKGH8lPpAsIFBb5Y1w4K+wrLOMYw0Rt mmHzwbHp7iBQYfiZtaGo5M3+5fab7dHtsZeJ/jbYNFdB+xIFiY6pXGJDHpGp72u+0jAm 5kMpXMHUpt8Hxf6uvuYvcrlUW2WeD1vJ8dtw5/weydeNF0RzzAHbp8zYotFdQAV2BT0W 4wMeQJUmrcYVeQRv81YcxHlIw5U6/927dWZjQbrEzKnhLrLsGHnqyVUmeLS/H/W7ScmY vUPpgWVSTfC23GUU3mVlfaf9oK7qoMuD54PgX8R950P6uHu4GKdnlMZ0k33t5IT94UJr 139A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVzdSj+7VH4oDdtdIbNRHbCHCZ3jkuDq5l2koWRweym38yFkuV3nSBayc0wYT0JZx9LQEyDdkbaP/OGpIM=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx4b2sICfVGpa15eD5OPky8wJDGk9c3A0XdCrBQ8RSs2qgKxWV8 YRiGOWy8UZ4PsJKFQc+C1et+Ml5KceELe56RAVEw1kjGuSUdN7+hUGManMUTeQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvBsH3oFOAkXOLkL+c0MdkTq2O5HUO49hTiNg3nYtJmkRnBB3THfoJlaTZ8shf KpKNE43WiNDevhf7tQLtMArafLNW0+PmdziVhJbHKKayhv9oNO+LZJG4efiofBm9lrS3yXaPLMM t9ti8b5bcK92oZ93XqbBpyXjGG7Gz66Ul1bXvXpBtJEfTf85+MrsmXbCBvM2zCI8NJD1IMnloGM bP1cN68mkl6MiV68qH1HpGLOjl1dZj6O61OZoYS9sm6OXvPzj+ouq6AE6N0yaW+gTYmIbzX2wAC o6RnS9Cc8+GJAgK4ruQwi+PYQaIrgrd5N6XwKatc24VWTpDBC/KJK/Uye6tHLyYoGYhSDvzW0JV PR7YQin4AQy4Y7XzJ+ZjNwQI0dA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHgmaMykJuMYvv7QD/ziX2omMhk+AntnG0Px6ZBZpdvG36UzbAoKiAqQ2mp1n2eBu3/c1Y5Xw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2241:b0:6e6:602f:ef68 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6e8e6d1065cmr44842656d6.10.1741185503461; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 06:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localhost (pool-74-98-231-160.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net. [74.98.231.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6e8976346fcsm79902296d6.14.2025.03.05.06.38.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 05 Mar 2025 06:38:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:38:14 +0000 From: Kaiyang Zhao To: Chen Yu Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , "Liam R. Howlett" , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Huang, Ying" , Tim Chen , Aubrey Li , Michael Wang , David Rientjes , Raghavendra K T , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sched/numa: Introduce per cgroup numa balance control Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:59:33PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote: > This per-cgroup NUMA balancing control was once proposed in > 2019 by Yun Wang[1]. Then, in 2024, Kaiyang Zhao mentioned > that he was working with Meta on per-cgroup NUMA control[2] > during a discussion with David Rientjes. > > I could not find further discussion regarding per-cgroup NUMA > balancing from that point on. This set of RFC patches is a > rough and compile-passed version, and may have unhandled cases > (for example, THP). It has not been thoroughly tested and is > intended to initiate or resume the discussion on the topic of > per-cgroup NUMA load balancing. Hello Chen, It's nice to see people interested in this. I posted a set of RFC patches later[1] that focuses on the fairness issue in memory tiering. It mostly concerns the demotion side of things, and the promotion / NUMA balancing side of things was left out of the patch set. I don't work for Meta now, but my understanding is that they'll attempt to push through a solution for per-cgroup control of memory tiering that is in the same vein as my RFC patches, and it may include controls for per-group NUMA balancing in the context of tiered memory. Best, Kaiyang [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240920221202.1734227-1-kaiyang2@cs.cmu.edu/