[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52011E99.8030708@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:04:41 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Add per-process flag to control thp
On 08/06/2013 11:08 AM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> Thanks, Andrew. I'm doing some more testing and looking into using a
> different method for controlling this. At this point, I think it's fair
> to say that we don't want to control this using the method that I've
> proposed here, no matter how we look at it.
Considering that we have both mlock and mlockall, it
is not totally crazy to also have both madvise and
madviseall.
Just saying... :)
--
All rights reversed
--
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