Facebook/Meta Tackling Transparent Page Placement For Tiered-Memory Linux Systems

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Facebook/Meta Tackling Transparent Page Placement For Tiered-Memory Linux Systems

Back during the Linux 5.15 cycle Intel contributed an improvement for tiered memory systems where less used memory pages could be demoted to slower tiers of memory storage. But once demoted that kernel infrastructure didn't have a means of promoting those demoted pages back to the faster memory tiers should they become hot again, though now Facebook/Meta engineers have been working on such functionality...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Meta-Hot-Pages-High-Tiers

[tildearrow]

Good idea. I wonder if this means better swap experience.

[coder]

... now Facebook/Meta engineers have been working on such functionality...

I was going to complain about use of the term "Facebook/Meta", but now I see the patch itself appears to reference "Meta" instead of what I think is probably still a "Facebook" workload.

BTW, Meta is just a renaming of the parent company. The actual Facebook site is still called "Facebook". However, where it could get fuzzy is that there's probably some backend infrastructure that's shared by multiple products and services (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Oculus, etc.).

[BratishkaErik]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Meta, is in fact, Facebook/Meta, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Facebook plus Meta...

[CommunityMember]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Meta, is in fact, Facebook/Meta, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Facebook plus Meta...

For those that believe the proper name is GNU/Linux, should it not be Meta/Facebook (Facebook is just one piece of the Meta(verse))?

As long as proper credit is given where due, corporate re-branding is just a new coat of paint on the (infra)structure.

[Developer12]

Google tried to rename themselves Alphabet. Facebook tried to rename themselves Meta.
We see it for what it is, and attempt to escape their sins, and sweep it aside.

Google is still Google.
Facebook is still Facebook.

[coder]

I've recently taken to calling it, Facebook plus Meta...

If that gets old, maybe you could shorten it to just "Facebook".

[coder]

Google tried to rename themselves Alphabet. Facebook tried to rename themselves Meta.
We see it for what it is, and attempt to escape their sins, and sweep it aside.

Google is still Google.
Facebook is still Facebook.

Yes and no. At some point in the future, the Facebook service could no longer be their biggest business. At that point, they might not want the association between Facebook and some leading product "Foo", just as I'm sure it's doing no favors for Instagram that people associate it with Facebook.

Google is a slightly different story, because they basically followed Yahoo's playbook of offering a wide variety of different services and inserted "Google" into the name of practically every one of them. Android is probably the biggest counter-example that comes to mind (i.e. where "Google" isn't part of the name).

Anyway, the more time we waste talking about names, the more it fulfills the narrative of the name-change being timed to distract from their misbehavior -- whether or not that was indeed their intent.

[RahulSundaram]

Google tried to rename themselves Alphabet. Facebook tried to rename themselves Meta.
We see it for what it is, and attempt to escape their sins, and sweep it aside.

Google is still Google.
Facebook is still Facebook.

Google did not rename itself though. It is a subsidiary of the parent company Alphabet.

[jonix]

For those that believe the proper name is GNU/Linux, should it not be Meta/Facebook (Facebook is just one piece of the Meta(verse))?

As long as proper credit is given where due, corporate re-branding is just a new coat of paint on the (infra)structure.

I don't think this is an accurate comparison.
In the Meta/Facebook case Facebook is the product Meta is the company (they may have a "Facebook" company, but that would be just for tax reasons).
In the GNU/Linux case both are products (or group of projects for GNU) and neither are a company. They are said together because the projects are usually distributed together and complement each other.

I believe that proper credit would be to use just "Facebook" when talking about the product (the social network) and use just "Meta" when talking about the company. In this specific case I would use just "Meta", because the employees who made the contribution are associate with the company even when they are working on the product.

On the coat of pai... I mean the re-branding. Yeah you are right.