On 11/10/21 12:26 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:

Of those two, I agree with the second one, it would be tricky to implement
but the first one is less clear. This is based on an assumption. If prctl
exists to enable/disable NUMA baalancing, it's possible that someone
else would want to control NUMA balancing on a cgroup basis instead of
globally which would run into the same type of concerns -- different
semantics depending on the global tunable.

Hi!

You talk about the "semantics" of NUMA balancing between global, cgroup 
and process. While I read the kernel doc "NUMA Memory Policy", it occur 
to me that we may have a "NUMA Balancing Policy".

Since you are the reviewer of CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING. I would like to 
discuss the need for introducing "NUMA Balancing Policy" with you. Is 
this worth doing?