On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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 fundamental purpose of a memory policy layer is to control memory
allocation on a system. If there no way to obtain that policy
information and no way to control the policies then what is the purpose of
the memory policies? Would it not be better to implement most what is
currently in the kernel in user space since its restricted to a process
anyways?
> > 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.
Because its not possible to view and control memory policies otherwise.
> > 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.
So your point of view is that there will be no control and monitoring of
the memory usage and policies?
-
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]
| |
 |