[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236878604.3213.57.camel@calx>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:23:24 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm] cpusets: add memory_slab_hardwall flag
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 12:08 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, and that's why we require the cpuset hardwall on a configurable
> > > > per-cpuset basis. If a cpuset has set this option for its workload, then
> > > > it is demanding object allocations from local memory. Other cpusets that
> > > > do not have memory_slab_hardwall set can still allocate from any cpu slab
> > > > or partial slab, including those allocated for the hardwall cpuset.
> > >
> > > You cannot hardwall something that is used in a shared way by processes in
> > > multiple cpusets.
> >
> > He can enforce that every allocation made when a given task is current
> > conforms. His patch demonstrates that.
>
> Of course. But that may just be a subset of the data used by a task. If an
> inode, dentry and so on was already allocated in the context of another
> process then the locality of that allocation will not be changed. The
> hardwall will have no effect.
It will if he's also using a namespace. This is part of a larger puzzle.
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
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