On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset. > > err, yes, that. > > > One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok. > > Which is superior? > > Which maps best onto the way systems are used (and onto ways in which > we _intend_ that systems be used)? > node has hugepage interface now. [root@bluextal qemu-kvm-0.12.3]# ls /sys/devices/system/node/node0/hugepages/ hugepages-2048kB So, per-node knob is straightforward. > Is the physical node really the best unit-of-administration? And is > direct access to physical nodes the best means by which admins will > manage things? In these days, we tend to use "setup tool" for using cpuset, etc. (as libcgroup.) Considering control by userland-support-soft, I think pernode is not bad. And per-cpuset requires users to mount cpuset. (Now, most of my customer doesn't use cpuset.) Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>