[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903040959530.17033@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:06:49 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slub: enforce cpuset restrictions for cpu slabs
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> That would make the per object memory policies in SLUB configurable? If
> you can do that without regression and its clean then it would be
> acceptable.
>
Yes, if `slab_hardwall' is enabled for a cpuset it will attempt to replace
the cpu slab with a partial slab on an allowed node.
> Again if you want per object memory policies in SLUB then it needs to be
> added consistently. You would also f.e. have to check for an MPOL_BIND
> condition where you check for cpuset nodes and make sure that __slab_alloc
> goes round robin on MPOL_INTERLEAVE etc etc. You end up with a similar
> nightmare implementation of that stuff as in SLAB.
I agree that we should avoid adding mempolicy support, especially
MPOL_INTERLEAVE at the object level since that would totally avoid the
fastpath for any task using it.
--
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