lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch
Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> My patches don't have per process enablement. Rather, I chose to use
> per cpuset enablement. I view cpusets as sort of "numa control groups"
> and thought this was an appropriate level at which to control this sort
> of behavior--analogous to memory_spread_{page|slab}. That probably
> needs to be discussed more widely, tho'.
>

Could you explain why you actually want to enable/disable
migrate-on-fault on a cpuset (or process) basis? Why would an
administrator want to disable it? Aren't the existing cpuset memory
restriction abilities enough?

Brice



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-20 09:27    [W:0.161 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site