From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA21hC8m402158 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:43:12 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iA21hCbN166588 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:43:12 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA21hCkK001147 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:43:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4186E62E.9000609@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:43:10 -0800 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use MPOL_INTERLEAVE for tmpfs files References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Brent Casavant Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hugh@veritas.com, ak@suse.de List-ID: Brent Casavant wrote: > This patch causes memory allocation for tmpfs files to be distributed > evenly across NUMA machines. In most circumstances today, tmpfs files > will be allocated on the same node as the task writing to the file. > In many cases, particularly when large files are created, or a large > number of files are created by a single task, this leads to a severe > imbalance in free memory amongst nodes. This patch corrects that > situation. Why don't you just use the NUMA API in your application for this? Won't this hurt any application that uses tmpfs and never leaves a node in its lifetime, like a short gcc run? -- 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: aart@kvack.org