From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:04:37 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [NUMA] Display and modify the memory policy of a process through /proc//numa_policy Message-Id: <20050715140437.7399921f.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <200507150452.j6F4q9g10274@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20050714230501.4a9df11e.pj@sgi.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, ak@suse.de List-ID: Christoph wrote: > I think the syscall interface is plainly wrong for monitoring and managing > a process. Well ... actually I'd have to agree with that. I chose a filesys interface for cpusets for similar reasons. However in this case, the added functionality seems so close to mbind/mempolicy that one has to at least give consideration to remaining consistent with that style of interface. These questions of interface style (filesys or syscall) probably don't matter, however. at least not yet. First we need to make sense of the larger issues that Ken and Andi raise, of whether this is a good thing to do. -- 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