Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:40:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Will Huck <will.huckk@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tmpfs: fix mempolicy object leaks
In-Reply-To: <5133E178.90405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1303051101350.27525@eggly.anvils>
References: <1361344302-26565-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1361344302-26565-2-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1302201221270.1152@eggly.anvils> <5133E178.90405@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1183
Lines: 26

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
> 
> Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
> that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
> mm subsystem just have little.

NUMA mempolicy is mostly handled in mm/mempolicy.c, which services the
mbind, migrate_pages, set_mempolicy, get_mempolicy system calls: which
govern how process memory is distributed across NUMA nodes.

mm/shmem.c is affected because it was also found useful to specify
mempolicy on the shared memory objects which may back process memory:
that includes SysV SHM and POSIX shared memory and tmpfs.  mm/hugetlb.c
contains some mempolicy handling for hugetlbfs; fs/ramfs is kept minimal,
so nothing in there.

Those are the memory-based filesystems, where NUMA mempolicy is most
natural.  The regular filesystems could support shared mempolicy too,
but that would raise more awkward design questions.

Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/