On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 21:52:24 -0700 Joshua Hahn <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Joshua, Thanks for your feedback. > On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 20:46:16 -0400 Gregory Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 agree. From now on I will keep my explanations focused on the key points. > 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 think this is a good suggestion. Even if it is not this exact wording, I will look for a shorter and better description that includes your idea. > 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. It does not have to apply only to weighted interleave. Patch 2 simply groups NUMA nodes by the package they belong to. So the same grouping can also be used for interleave, not just weighted interleave. I have not applied it to interleave because I could not find a clear use case for it yet. > I am also out on vacation this week : -) > I'll take a closer look along with the code next week as well. Thank you. I look forward to your comments. Thanks again for your time and review. Rakie Kim
