Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:01:12 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Use MPOL_INTERLEAVE for tmpfs files |
| |
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 08:44:32AM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > > Another way might be a tmpfs mount option ... I'd prefer that to a sysctl > > personally, but maybe others wouldn't. Hugh, is that nuts? > > Only nuts if I am, I was going to suggest the same: the sysctl idea seems > very inadequate; a mount option at least allows the possibility of having > different tmpfs files allocated with different policies at the same time. > > But I'm not usually qualified to comment on NUMA matters, and my tmpfs > maintenance shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of progress. Plus > I've barely been attending in recent days: back to normality tomorrow.
If you want to go more finegraid then you can always use numactl or even libnuma in the application. For a quick policy decision a sysctl is fine imho.
-Andi - 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/
| |