Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] Expose per-node reclaim and migration to userspace

["Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>]

On 11/30/06, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> But I'm not sure that there is a good reason to use the same
> abstraction. Maybe there is, but I think it needs more discussion
> (unless I missed something in the past couple of weeks were you
> managed to get all memory resource controller groups to agree with
> your fakenodes approach).

No, not at all - but we've observed that:

a) people have been proposing interesting memory controller approaches
for a long time, and haven't made a great deal of progress so far, so
there's no indication than something is going to be agreed upon in the
near future

b) the cpusets and fake numa code provide a fairly serviceable
coarse-grained memory controller, modulo a few missing features such
as per-node reclaim/migration and auto-expansion (see my patch
proposal hopefully tomorrow).

Paul

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>