From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 03:14:48 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement Message-ID: <20070803011448.GF14775@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070731054142.GB11306@wotan.suse.de> <200707311114.09284.ak@suse.de> <20070802034201.GA32631@wotan.suse.de> <20070803002639.GC14775@wotan.suse.de> <20070803005700.GD14775@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 , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:02:56PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > Ok. So MPOL_BIND on a single node. We would have to save the current > > > memory policy on the stack and then restore it later. Then you would need > > > a special call anyways. > > > > Well the memory policy will already be set to MPOL_BIND at this point. > > The slab allocator I think would just have to honour the node at the > > object level. > > Who set the policy? The parent process may have its own memory policy. If > you set that then the earlier policy is lost. Yeah it only gets set if the parent is initially using a default policy at this stage (and then is restored afterwards of course). -- 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