From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:45:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux Memory Policy In-Reply-To: <20070601202829.GA14250@minantech.com> 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> <20070601202829.GA14250@minantech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , Andi Kleen , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > 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. > Do you want a solution that doesn't associate memory policy with a file > (if a file is mapped shared and disk backed) like Lee's solution does, but > instead install it into VMA and respect the policy during pagecache page > allocation on behalf of the process? So two process should cooperate Right. > (bind same part of a file to a same memory node in each process) to get > consistent result? If yes this will work for me. Yes. -- 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