From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] Make writeout during reclaim cpuset aware
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:28:16 +1100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: clameter@sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, menage@google.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, dgc@sgi.com
References: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <200701170907.14670.ak@suse.de> <20070116202056.075c4c03.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070116202056.075c4c03.pj@sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200701171528.16854.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 925
Lines: 25

On Wednesday 17 January 2007 15:20, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Andi wrote:
> > Is there a reason this can't be just done by node, ignoring the cpusets?
>
> This suggestion doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
>
> We're looking to see if a task has dirtied most of the
> pages in the nodes it is allowed to use.  If it has, then
> we want to start pushing pages to the disk harder, and
> slowing down the tasks writes.
>
> What would it mean to do this per-node?  And why would
> that be better?

With a per node dirty limit you would get essentially the
same effect and it would have the advantage of helping
people who don't configure any cpusets but run on a NUMA 
system.

-Andi
-
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/