From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:38:03 +0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux Memory Policy Message-ID: <20070601093803.GE10459@minantech.com> References: <1180467234.5067.52.camel@localhost> <1180637765.5091.153.camel@localhost> <20070531200644.GD10459@minantech.com> <200705312243.20242.ak@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705312243.20242.ak@suse.de> From: glebn@voltaire.com (Gleb Natapov) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:43:19PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > Do I > > > > miss something here? > > > > > > I think you do. > > OK. It seems I missed the fact that VMA policy is completely ignored for > > pagecache backed files and only task policy is used. > > That's not correct. tmpfs is page cache backed and supports (even shared) VMA policy. > hugetlbfs used to too, but lost its ability, but will hopefully get it again. > This is even more confusing. So numa_*_memory() works different depending on where file is created. I can't rely on this anyway and have to assume that numa_*_memory() call is ignored and prefault. I think Lee's patches should be applied ASAP to fix this inconsistency. -- Gleb. -- 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