Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266196AbUIXELm (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266073AbUIXELm (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:42 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:44943 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266196AbUIXELj (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:11:39 -0400 Message-ID: <41539EC1.1040301@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:12:49 -0500 From: Ray Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Ray Bryant , William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Jesse Barnes , Dan Higgins , Dave Hansen , lse-tech , Brent Casavant , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel , Paul Jackson , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: page cache mempolicy for page cache allocation References: <20040923043236.2132.2385.23158@raybryhome.rayhome.net> <20040923043246.2132.91877.24290@raybryhome.rayhome.net> <20040923092416.GC6146@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20040923092416.GC6146@wotan.suse.de> 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: 1733 Lines: 42 Andi Kleen wrote: > > Overall when I look at all the complications you add for the per process > page policy which doesn't even have a demonstrated need I'm not sure > it is really worth it. > Polling people inside of SGI, they seem to think that a per file memory policy is a good thing, but it needs to be settable from outside the process without changing the header or code of the process (think of an ISV application that we want to run on Altix.) I can't quite get my head around what that means (do you have to specify this externally based on the order that files are opened in [e. g. file 1 has policy this, file 2 has policy that, etc] or does one specify this by type of file [text, mapped file, etc]). Does this end up being effectively a per process policy with a per file override? (e. g. all files for this process are managed with policy "this", except for the 5th file opened [or whatever] and it has policy "that".) Steve -- how does your MTA design handle this? Anyway, I'm about to throw in the towel on the per process page cache memory policy. I can't make a strong enough argument for it. I assume that is acceptable, Andi? :-) -- Best Regards, Ray ----------------------------------------------- Ray Bryant 512-453-9679 (work) 512-507-7807 (cell) raybry@sgi.com raybry@austin.rr.com The box said: "Requires Windows 98 or better", so I installed Linux. ----------------------------------------------- - 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/