From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 22:16:13 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050527.221613.78716667.taka@valinux.co.jp> Subject: Virtual NUMA machine and CKRM From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: <20050519003008.GC25076@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20050519003008.GC25076@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Chandra, Why don't you implement CKRM memory controller as virtual NUMA node. I think what you want do is almost what NUMA code does, which restricts resources to use. If you define virtual NUMA node with some memory and some virtual CPUs, you can just assign target jobs to them. What do you think of my idea? Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi. > I am looking for improvement suggestions > - to not have a field in the page data structure for the mem > controller > - to make vmscan.c cleaner. -- 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