Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751438AbWHRRm6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:42:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751439AbWHRRm6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:42:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:50817 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438AbWHRRm5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:42:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:38:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Dave Hansen Cc: Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Christoph@sc8-sf-spam2-b.sourceforge.net, List , Kirill Korotaev , Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , Alan Cox , Linux@sc8-sf-spam2-b.sourceforge.net, rohitseth@google.com, hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Pavel Emelianov , devel@openvz.org, Andi Kleen , Linux Containers Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) Message-Id: <20060818103820.34cc631a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1155922156.12204.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C3F.3010509@sw.ru> <1155752277.22595.70.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155755069.24077.392.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155756170.22595.109.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E45D6A.8000003@sw.ru> <20060817084033.f199d4c7.akpm@osdl.org> <20060818120809.B11407@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <1155912348.9274.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818094248.cdca152d.akpm@osdl.org> <1155922156.12204.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; 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: 986 Lines: 22 On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:29:16 -0700 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 09:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I have this mad idea that you can divide a 128GB machine up into 256 fake > > NUMA nodes, then you use each "node" as a 512MB unit of memory allocation. > > So that 4.5GB job would be placed within an exclusive cpuset which has nine > > "mems" (what are these called?) and voila: the job has a hard 4.5GB limit, > > no kernel changes needed. > > Is this similar to Mel Gorman's zone-based anti-fragmentation approach? I don't think so - it's using zones, but for a quite different thing. > I thought he was discouraged from pursuing that at the VM summit. That seemed to a be a 49%/51% call, iirc. - 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/