From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:01:12 +0100 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MPOL_INTERLEAVE for tmpfs files Message-ID: <20041103090112.GJ8907@wotan.suse.de> References: <239530000.1099435919@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Brent Casavant , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org