Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932430Ab0DGBXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:23:17 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:48723 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932370Ab0DGBXJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:23:09 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:19:13 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Andrew Morton 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: <20100407101913.58d1855b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100406175601.b131e9d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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> <20100406175601.b131e9d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) 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: 1298 Lines: 45 On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400 Andrew Morton wrote: > 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)? > node has hugepage interface now. [root@bluextal qemu-kvm-0.12.3]# ls /sys/devices/system/node/node0/hugepages/ hugepages-2048kB So, per-node knob is straightforward. > 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? In these days, we tend to use "setup tool" for using cpuset, etc. (as libcgroup.) Considering control by userland-support-soft, I think pernode is not bad. And per-cpuset requires users to mount cpuset. (Now, most of my customer doesn't use cpuset.) Thanks, -Kame -- 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/