Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:50:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:50:30 -0500 Received: from mail3.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.38]:64915 "EHLO mail3.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:50:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 21:47:45 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Samuel Ortiz , "Martin J. Bligh" cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Matt Dobson , Daniel Phillips , Bill Davidsen , Mike Fedyk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.19pre1aa1 Message-ID: <795229669.1015278464@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > SGI's CpuMemSets is supposed to do that as well. We are now able to bind a > process to a set of memories, and soon we will be able to specify how > strict the allocation can be. Right now, if a process is allowed to > allocate memory from node 0, 2, and 3, it won't look outside of this set. > The memory set granularity is smaller though, because it depends on the > process, and the cpu (and thus the node) this process is running on. > The CpuMemSets have been tested and are available on the Linux Scalability > Effort sourceforge page, if you want to give it a try... The problem with CpuMemSets is that it's mind-bogglingly complex - I think we need something simpler ... at least to start with. M. - 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/