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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 E5D47C4338F for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C333860E97 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237472AbhG3Hif (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:38:35 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:38340 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237403AbhG3Hie (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:38:34 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8BA2233D; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:38:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1627630709; 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=jGHXXndIRPcNqfp9ZjfxjjaXEDBdfQyrjmCIAb6m5dA=; b=AfLpBOqzqAYHEFisYuBRqPn1V3uIqFKJCjTiZtHe/G8HUvy0jXX6aASbxKZhvRuOf3s1J1 LXBOUQlLTvqpf9Nh/6T5XAbWL9PWFYnPZAyIEFRrr1wzwFt/u6x/awtp7u+uJv97BkBtNG +/cbnJYCRX6ZUXRRgyM8VSMyRHuETPA= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE13A3B8E; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 09:38:28 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Feng Tang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Dave Hansen , Ben Widawsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , Andi Kleen , Dan Williams , ying.huang@intel.com, Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes Message-ID: References: <20210728141156.GC43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210729070918.GA96680@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210729151242.GA42865@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210730030502.GA87066@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210730071840.GA87305@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210730071840.GA87305@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri 30-07-21 15:18:40, Feng Tang wrote: [...] > And for the mempolicy_slab_node(), it seems to be a little different, > and we may need to reuse its logic for 'bind' policy, which is similar > to what we've discussed, pick a nearest node to the local node. And > similar for mpol_misplaced(). Thoughts? I have to admit, I haven't looked closer to what slab does. I am not familiar with internals and would have to study it some more. Maybe slab maintainers have an idea. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs