From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: NUMA policy interface In-Reply-To: <20050804234025.GJ8266@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20050803084849.GB10895@wotan.suse.de> <20050804142942.GY8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804170803.GB8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804211445.GE8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804214132.GF8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804234025.GJ8266@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Paul Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > None of them seem very attractive to me. I would prefer to just > not support external accesses keeping things lean and fast. That is a surprising statement given what we just discussed. Things are not lean and fast but weirdly screwed up. The policy layer is significantly impacted by historical contingencies rather than designed in a clean way. It cannot even deliver the functionality it was designed to deliver (see BIND). > Individual physical page migration is quite different from > address space migration. Address space migration? That is something new in this discussion. So could you explain what you mean by that? I have looked at page migration in a variety of contexts and could not see much difference. -- 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