From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:25:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/8] Mapped File Policy Overview In-Reply-To: <1180104952.5730.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20070524172821.13933.80093.sendpatchset@localhost> <200705242241.35373.ak@suse.de> <1180040744.5327.110.camel@localhost> <1180104952.5730.28.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nish.aravamudan@gmail.com List-ID: On Fri, 25 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > It's easy to fix. The shared policy support is already there. We just > need to generalize it for regular files. In the process, > *page_cache_alloc() obeys "file policy", which will allow additional > features such as you mentioned: global page cache policy as the default > "file policy". A page cache policy would not need to be file based. It would be enough to have a global one or one per cpuset. And it would not suffer from the vanishing act of the inodes. > By the way, I think we need the numa_maps fixes in any case because the > current implementation lies about shmem segments if you look at any task > that didn't install [all of] the policy on the segment, unless it > happens to be a child of the task that did install the policy and that > child was forked after the mbind() calls. I really dislike all of those > "ifs" and "unlesses"--I found it humorous in the George Carlin routine, > but not in user/programming interface design. Could you separate out a patch that fixes these issues? -- 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