From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] Mapped File Policy Overview Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:44:38 +0200 References: <20070524172821.13933.80093.sendpatchset@localhost> <200705252303.16752.ak@suse.de> <1180127668.21879.18.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1180127668.21879.18.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705260044.39065.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nish.aravamudan@gmail.com List-ID: > > I agree. A general page cache policy is probably a good idea and having > > it in a cpuset is reasonable too. I've been also toying with the idea to > > change the global default to interleaved for unmapped files. > > > > But in this case it's actually not needed to add something to the > > address space. It can be all process policy based. > > Just so we're clear, I'm talking about "struct address_space", as in the > file's "mapping", not as in "struct mm_struct". I'm talking about the same. Process/current cpuset policy doesn't need anything in struct address_space -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