Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
>
>>That seems a bit beyond the scope of what I'd hoped for this patch series,
>>but if an approach like this is believed to be generally useful, it's
>>something I'm more than willing to work on...
>
>
> We need this for other issues as well. f.e. to establish memory allocation
> policies for the page cache, tmpfs and various other needs. Look at
> mempolicy.h which defines a subset of what we need. Currently there is no
> way to specify a policy when invoking the page allocator or slab
> allocator. The policy is implicily fetched from the current task structure
> which is not optimal.
I agree that the current, task-based policies are subobtimal. Having to
allocate and fill in even a small structure for each allocation is going to
be a tough sell, though. I suppose most allocations could get by with a
small handfull of static generic "policy structures"... This seems like it
will turn into a signifcant rework of all the kernel's allocation routines,
no small task. Certainly not something that I'd even start without
response from some other major players in the VM area... Anyone?
-Matt
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
