[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1303051101350.27525@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:40:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Will Huck <will.huckk@...il.com>
cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tmpfs: fix mempolicy object leaks
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
>
> Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
> that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
> mm subsystem just have little.
NUMA mempolicy is mostly handled in mm/mempolicy.c, which services the
mbind, migrate_pages, set_mempolicy, get_mempolicy system calls: which
govern how process memory is distributed across NUMA nodes.
mm/shmem.c is affected because it was also found useful to specify
mempolicy on the shared memory objects which may back process memory:
that includes SysV SHM and POSIX shared memory and tmpfs. mm/hugetlb.c
contains some mempolicy handling for hugetlbfs; fs/ramfs is kept minimal,
so nothing in there.
Those are the memory-based filesystems, where NUMA mempolicy is most
natural. The regular filesystems could support shared mempolicy too,
but that would raise more awkward design questions.
Hugh
--
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