Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation

Paul Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  Is page vs slab cache the appropriate level of granularity?
> 

I guess so.  Doing it on a per-cpuset+per-slab or per-cpuset+per-inode
basis would get a bit complex implementation-wise, I expect.  And a smart
application could roughly implement that itself anyway by turning spreading
on and off as it goes.

One does wonder about the buffer-head slab - it's pretty tightly bound to
pagecache..

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [QUESTION/sysfs] strange refcounting
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH, V2] i386: instead of poisoning .init zone, change protection bits to force a fault
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpuset memory spread basic implementation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]