On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: >> > >> > > I always regretted that cpusets were no done with custom node lists. >> > > That would have been much cleaner and also likely faster than what we have. >> > >> > Could shared memory policies ignore cpuset constraints? >> >> Only if noone uses cpusets as a "security" mechanism, just for a "soft policy" >> Even with soft policy you could well break someone's setup. > > Well at least lets exempt shared memory from memory migration and memory > policy updates. That seems to be causing many of these issues. Yes, that's right direction, I think. Currently, shmem_set_policy() can't handle nonlinear mapping. vma -> file offset transration is not so easy work and I doubt we should do. -- 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>