On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > I really hate this whole /proc/<pid>/numa_policy thing. /proc/<pid>/maps
> > was imho always a desaster (hard to parse, slow etc.). Also external
> > access of NUMA policies has interesting locking issues. I intentionally
> > didn't add something like that when I designed the original
> > NUMA API. Please don't add it.
>
> You designed a NUMA API to control a process memory access patterns
> without the ability to view or modify the policies in use?
Processes internally can get the information if they want.
Externally I didn't expose it intentionally to avoid locking problems
> The locking issues for the policy information in the task_struct could be
> solved by having a thread execute a function that either sets or gets the
> memory policy. The vma policies already have a locking mechanism.
But why? It all only adds complexity. Keep it simple please.
>
> This piece here only does conversion to a string representation so it
> should not be affected by locking issues. Processes need to do proper
> locking when using the conversion functions.
It's useless.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |