From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:30 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: NUMA policy interface Message-ID: <20050805091630.GL8266@wotan.suse.de> References: <20050804142942.GY8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804170803.GB8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804211445.GE8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804214132.GF8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804234025.GJ8266@wotan.suse.de> 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: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , Paul Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:49:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > None of them seem very attractive to me. I would prefer to just > > not support external accesses keeping things lean and fast. > > That is a surprising statement given what we just discussed. Things > are not lean and fast but weirdly screwed up. The policy layer is > significantly impacted by historical contingencies rather than designed in > a clean way. It cannot even deliver the functionality it was designed to > deliver (see BIND). That seems like a unfair description to me. While things are not perfect they are definitely not as bad as you're trying to paint them. > > > Individual physical page migration is quite different from > > address space migration. > > Address space migration? That is something new in this discussion. So > could you explain what you mean by that? I have looked at page migration > in a variety of contexts and could not see much difference. MCE page migration just puts a physical page to somewhere else. memory hotplug migration does the same for multiple pages from different processes. Page migration like you're asking for migrates whole processes. -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: email@kvack.org