lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
    >
    > Andrew wrote:
    > > IOW: this patch seems to be a highly specific bandaid which is repairing an
    > > ill-advised problem of our own making, does it not?
    >
    >
    > I am mystified. I am unable to imagine how you see this memory
    > spreading patchset as a response to some damage caused by previous
    > work.

    Node-local allocation.

    >
    > So, the user must tell the kernel it needs this.
    >

    Well I agree. And I think that the only way we'll get peak performance for
    an acceptaly broad range of applications is to provide many fine-grained
    controls and the appropriate documentation and instrumentation to help
    developers and administrators use those controls.

    We're all on the same page here. I'm questioning whether slab and
    pagecache should be inextricably lumped together though.

    Is it possible to integrate the slab and pagecache allocation policies more
    cleanly into a process's mempolicy? Right now, MPOL_* are disjoint.

    (Why is the spreading policy part of cpusets at all? Shouldn't it be part
    of the mempolicy layer?)
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-06 08:12    [W:3.085 / U:1.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site