From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:05:01 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [NUMA] Display and modify the memory policy of a process through /proc//numa_policy Message-Id: <20050714230501.4a9df11e.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <200507150452.j6F4q9g10274@unix-os.sc.intel.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: Christoph Lameter Cc: kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen List-ID: Christoph wrote: > This is an implementation that deals with monitoring and managing running > processes. So is this patch roughly equivalent to adding a pid to the mbind/set_mempolicy/get_mempolicy system calls? Not that I am advocating for or against adding doing that. But this seems like alot of code, with new and exciting API details, just to add a pid argument, if such it be. Andi - could you remind us all why you chose not to have a pid argument in these calls? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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