Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:58:43 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers | From | Aneesh Kumar K V <> |
| |
On 6/13/22 6:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 01:30:08PM +0800, Ying Huang wrote: >> On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:01 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: >>> On 6/13/22 8:52 AM, Ying Huang wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 19:22 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>>> +config TIERED_MEMORY >>>>> + def_bool NUMA >>>>> + >>>> >>>> As Yang pointed out, why not just use CONFIG_NUMA? I suspect the >>>> added value of CONIFIG_TIRED_MEMORY. >>> >>> I decided to use TIERED_MEMORY to bring more clarity. It should be same >>> now that we have moved CONFIG_MIGRATION dependencies to runtime. IMHO >>> having CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY is better than using CONFIG_NUMA. >> >> I don't think CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY bring no much value. It's better >> to use CONFIG_NUMA directly. But this is just my opinion. > > I agree. As long as it's always built with CONFIG_NUMA, it's simply > NUMA code. Easy enough to modularize it later if somebody really wants > this to be configurable separately.
I was comparing,
#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY struct memory_tier {
vs
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA struct memory_tier {
I will switch to CONFIG_NUMA in the next update since you are not finding it beneficial.
-aneesh
| |