Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/8] mm,numa: N_PRIVATE node isolation for device-managed memory

[Gregory Price]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 05:17:53PM -0800, dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> I think what Balbir is saying is that the _PUBLIC is implied and can be
> omitted. It is true that N_MEMORY[_PUBLIC] already indicates multi-zone
> support. So N_MEMORY_PRIVATE makes sense to me as something that it is
> distinct from N_{HIGH,NORMAL}_MEMORY which are subsets of N_MEMORY.
> Distinct to prompt "go read the documentation to figure out why this
> thing looks not like the others".

Ah, ack.  Will update for v4 once i give some thought to the compression
stuff and the cgroups notes.

I would love if the ZONE_DEVICE folks could also chime in on whether the
callback structures for pgmap and hmm might be re-usable here, but might
take a few more versions to get the attention of everyone.

~Gregory