From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:43:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux Memory Policy In-Reply-To: <1180718106.5278.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1180467234.5067.52.camel@localhost> <200705312243.20242.ak@suse.de> <20070601093803.GE10459@minantech.com> <200706011221.33062.ak@suse.de> <1180718106.5278.28.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 , Gleb Natapov , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > Like Gleb, I find the different behaviors for different memory regions > to be unnatural. Not because of the fraction of applications or > deployments that might use them, but because [speaking for customers] I > expect and want to be able to control placement of any object mapped > into an application's address space, subject to permissions and > privileges. Same here and I wish we had a clean memory region based implementation. But that is just what your patches do *not* provide. Instead they are file based. They should be memory region based. Would you please come up with such a solution? > Then why does Christoph keep insisting that "page cache pages" must > always follow task policy, when shmem, tmpfs and anonymous pages don't > have to? No I just said that the page cache handling is consistently following task policy. -- 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