From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA4936B01E3 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o370ZfKw016022 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:41 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF1145DE53 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172B545DE52 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9421DB8012 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088AAE38003 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:35:37 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction Message-Id: <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100406170559.52093bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1270224168-14775-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1270224168-14775-11-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100406170559.52093bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , Adam Litke , Avi Kivity , David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:05:59 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:02:44 +0100 > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > This patch adds a per-node sysfs file called compact. When the file is > > written to, each zone in that node is compacted. The intention that this > > would be used by something like a job scheduler in a batch system before > > a job starts so that the job can allocate the maximum number of > > hugepages without significant start-up cost. > > Would it make more sense if this was a per-memcg thing rather than a > per-node thing? memcg doesn't have any relationship with placement of memory (now). It's just controls the amount of memory. So, memcg has no relationship with compaction. A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset. One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok. Thanks, -Kame -- 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