Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751001AbWBFFvL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:51:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751004AbWBFFvL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:51:11 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:34275 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751001AbWBFFvK (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:51:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:50:52 -0800 From: Paul Jackson To: Andrew Morton Cc: dgc@sgi.com, steiner@sgi.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clameter@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation Message-Id: <20060205215052.c5ab1651.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060205203358.1fdcea43.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060204071910.10021.8437.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20060204154944.36387a86.akpm@osdl.org> <20060205203358.1fdcea43.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.1.7 (GTK+ 2.4.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1696 Lines: 44 > > I'd have thought it would be saner to split these things apart: > > "slab_spread", "pagecache_spread", etc. > > This, please. It impacts the design of the whole thing. It was still in my queue to respond to, yes. All I am aware that is needed is to distinguish between: (1) application space pages, such as data and stack space, which the applications can page and place under their detailed control, and (2) what from the application's viewpoint is "kernel stuff" such as large amounts of pages required by file i/o, and their associated inode/dentry structures. The application space pages are typically anonymous pages which go away when the owning tasks exits, while the kernel space pages are typically accessible by multiple tasks and can stay around long after the initial faulting task exits. I prefer to keep the tunable knobs to a minimum. One boolean was sufficient for this. Just because a distinction seems substantial from the kernel internals perspective, doesn't mean we should reflect that in the tunable knobs. We should have an actual need first, not a strawman. If there is some reason, or preference, for adding two knobs (slab and page) instead of one, I can certainly do it. I am not yet aware that such is useful. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 - 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/