Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932320Ab0DGA6X (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:58:23 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:44233 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932307Ab0DGA6Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:58:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400 From: Andrew Morton To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , Adam Litke , Avi Kivity , David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction Message-Id: <20100406175601.b131e9d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1270224168-14775-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1270224168-14775-11-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100406170559.52093bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 741 Lines: 21 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset. err, yes, that. > One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok. Which is superior? Which maps best onto the way systems are used (and onto ways in which we _intend_ that systems be used)? Is the physical node really the best unit-of-administration? And is direct access to physical nodes the best means by which admins will manage things? -- 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/