[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830609201133k68cc1a0dr683137baa4e9be30@mail.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:33:25 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: rohitseth@...gle.com, "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux Memory Management" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On 9/20/06, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> Yes, I read that in your patches, I was wondering how the cpuset
> approach would handle this.
The VM currently has support for letting vmas define their own memory
policies - so specifying that a file-backed vma gets its memory from a
particular set of memory nodes would accomplish that for the fake-node
approach. The mechanism for setting up the per-file/per-vma policies
would probably involve something originating in struct inode or struct
address_space.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists