On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 20:46:16 -0400 Gregory Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 03:23:48PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 22:37:06 -0400 Gregory Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The cpuset.mems = 0,2 you describe is the node set of package 0, so > > the tasks in that cgroup use node0 and node2 wherever they run. > > > > I think you are over-complicating the explanation and that's making it > hard for folks to reason about this. > > My best understanding here is for multi-socket systems, weighted > interleave as-designed is inherently sub-optimal for scaled workloads > that utilize multi-socket ("package") memory resources (DRAM, CXL...) I was thinking about this and I think Gregory is right here. I wonder how much of the framing around this series can be preserved / simplified if we just say "prevent tasks from allocating memory cross-socket". I also wonder if instead of limiting this to weighted interleave, this can sit on top of other mpols and just nodemasks against cross-socket nodes. > I think there is also an assumption that total memory utilization is > less than the total capacity - otherwise some of the assumptions here > break, but that comes with the general weighted interleave story. > > I'm getting back from vacation, I will take a closer look this week. I am also out on vacation this week : -) I'll take a closer look along with the code next week as well. Thanks, Rakie and Gregory! Joshua
