On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Yes. I had planned to ping you and Mel, as I hadn't heard back from you > about the combined interfaces. I think they mesh fairly well, and the > per node attributes have the, perhaps desirable, property of ignoring > any current task mempolicy. But, I know that some folks don't like a > proliferation of ways to do something. I agree as a matter of general principle, but I don't think this would be a good example of it. I'm struggling to understand exactly how clean the mempolicy-based approach would be if an application such as a job scheduler wanted to free hugepages only on specific nodes. Presumably this would require the application to create a MPOL_BIND mempolicy to those nodes and write to /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages, but that may break existing implementations if there are no hugepages allocated on the mempolicy's nodes. > I'll package up the series [I > need to update the Documentation for the per node attributes] and send > it out as soon as I can get to it. This week, I'm pretty sure. > That's good news, thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
