On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 04:38 +0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:12:58PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > I would prefer to add a new policy (INTERLEAVE_MULTI or so) for this > > > instead of a global sysctl, that takes the additional parameter. > > > > That would require a change of all scripts and code that uses > > MPOL_INTERLEAVE. Lets not do that. > > Yes, but setting a sysctl would need the same right? > > It's not clear that all workloads want this. > > With a global switch only you cannot set it case by case. That's what I want to avoid letting each apps to explicitly do it, it's a lot of burden. That's true only workload with heavy I/O wants this. but I don't expect it will harm other workloads. >> Also I don't like having more per task state. Could you compute this >> from the address instead even for the process policy case? > >That sounds good. the process policy case doesn't give an address for allocation. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>