Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node

From: Dave Hansen
Date: Thu Apr 11 2019 - 10:28:06 EST

Next message: Joe Lawrence: "Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] livepatch: Create and include UAPI headers"
Previous message: Masahiro Yamada: "Re: [PATCH] kbuild: check arch/$(SRCARCH)/include/generated before out-of-tree build"
In reply to: Yang Shi: "Re: [v2 PATCH 7/9] mm: vmscan: check if the demote target node is contended or not"
Next in thread: Michal Hocko: "Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This isn't so much another aproach, as it it some tweaks on top of
what's there. Right?

This set seems to present a bunch of ideas, like "promote if accessed
twice". Seems like a good idea, but I'm a lot more interested in seeing
data about it being a good idea. What workloads is it good for? Bad for?

These look like fun to play with, but I'd be really curious what you
think needs to be done before we start merging these ideas.

Next message: Joe Lawrence: "Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] livepatch: Create and include UAPI headers"
Previous message: Masahiro Yamada: "Re: [PATCH] kbuild: check arch/$(SRCARCH)/include/generated before out-of-tree build"
In reply to: Yang Shi: "Re: [v2 PATCH 7/9] mm: vmscan: check if the demote target node is contended or not"
Next in thread: Michal Hocko: "Re: [v2 RFC PATCH 0/9] Another Approach to Use PMEM as NUMA Node"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]