Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:19:13 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction |
| |
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> 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
| |