Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:53:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:53:57 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]:31179 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 14:53:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3DA5CD19.80603@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:55:21 -0700 From: Matthew Dobson Reply-To: colpatch@us.ibm.com Organization: IBM LTC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: linux-kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, LSE , Andrew Morton , Martin Bligh , Michael Hohnbaum Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 References: <3DA4D3E4.6080401@us.ibm.com> <1034240403.1745.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 894 Lines: 24 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 03:12, Matthew Dobson wrote: > >>Greetings & Salutations, >> Here's a wonderful patch that I know you're all dying for... Memory >>Binding! It works just like CPU Affinity (binding) except that it binds >>a processes memory allocations (just buddy allocator for now) to >>specific memory blocks. > > If the VM works right just doing CPU binding ought to be enough, surely? You'll have to look at the response I wrote to Andrew's question along the same lines... This patch is for processes who feel that the VM *isn't* doing quite what they want, and want different behavior. Cheers! -Matt - 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/