[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:05:59 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:02:44 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
>
> > This patch adds a per-node sysfs file called compact. When the file is
> > written to, each zone in that node is compacted. The intention that this
> > would be used by something like a job scheduler in a batch system before
> > a job starts so that the job can allocate the maximum number of
> > hugepages without significant start-up cost.
>
> Would it make more sense if this was a per-memcg thing rather than a
> per-node thing?
memcg doesn't have any relationship with placement of memory (now).
It's just controls the amount of memory.
So, memcg has no relationship with compaction.
A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset.
One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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