From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2523E6B01F2 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o371N7uB003113 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:23:07 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C46645DE4F for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:23:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C90145DE51 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:23:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB121DB8040 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:23:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB7A1DB805B for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:23:03 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:19:13 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction Message-Id: <20100407101913.58d1855b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100406175601.b131e9d2.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> <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100406175601.b131e9d2.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 17:56:01 -0400 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset. > > err, yes, that. > > > One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok. > > Which is superior? > > Which maps best onto the way systems are used (and onto ways in which > we _intend_ that systems be used)? > node has hugepage interface now. [root@bluextal qemu-kvm-0.12.3]# ls /sys/devices/system/node/node0/hugepages/ hugepages-2048kB So, per-node knob is straightforward. > Is the physical node really the best unit-of-administration? And is > direct access to physical nodes the best means by which admins will > manage things? In these days, we tend to use "setup tool" for using cpuset, etc. (as libcgroup.) Considering control by userland-support-soft, I think pernode is not bad. And per-cpuset requires users to mount cpuset. (Now, most of my customer doesn't use cpuset.) 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