![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Brent Casavant wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Confused. Is this for applications which cannot be taught to use the > > mempolicy API? > > In general yes. Anything that writes into a tmpfs filesystem is liable > to disproportionately decrease the available memory on a particular node. > Since there's no telling what sort of application (e.g. dd/cp/cat) might be > dropping large files there, this lets the admin choose the appropriate > default behavior for their site's situation. I look at it differently, and would answer Andrew's question with "no" rather than "yes". The mempolicy API applies only to userspace mappings: so it covers shared memory fine, but cannot be applied to tmpfs files. Whereas mount's mpol= applies to tmpfs files, and (unfortunately?) cannot be applied to shm (since that's on an internal mount with no options). The only overlap comes when a tmpfs file is mmap'ed: then it's possible to apply the mempolicy API to it, and refine what mount's mpol= defined. There's been talk in the past of mempolicy for pagecache, which would also allow mount's mpol= to be refined per file; but that's not appeared. Hugh - 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: 2006-01-14 08:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||