From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/11] Shared Policy Overview In-Reply-To: <200706280001.16383.ak@suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070625195224.21210.89898.sendpatchset@localhost> <1182968078.4948.30.camel@localhost> <200706280001.16383.ak@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: Lee Schermerhorn , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nacc@us.ibm.com List-ID: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I think one prerequisite to memory policy uses like this is work out how a > > memory policy can be handled by the page allocator in such a way that > > > > 1. The use is lightweight and does not impact performance. > > The current mempolicies are all lightweight and zero cost in the main > allocator path. Right but with incrementing the policy refcount on each allocation we are no longer lightweight. > The only outlier is still cpusets which does strange stuff, but you > can't blame mempolicies for that. What strange stuff does cpusets do? It would be good if further work could integration all allocations constraints / special behavior of containers/cpusets/memory policies etc. -- 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