Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

Matthew Dobson wrote:
> 
> Greetings & Salutations,
>         Here's a wonderful patch that I know you're all dying for...  Memory
> Binding!


Seems reasonable to me.

Could you tell us a bit about the operator's view of this?

I assume that a typical usage scenario would be to bind a process
to a bunch of CPUs and to then bind that process to a bunch of
memblks as well? 

If so, then how does the operator know how to identify those
memblks?  To perform the (cpu list) <-> (memblk list) mapping?

Also, what advantage does this provide over the current node-local
allocation policy?  I'd have thought that once you'd bound a 
process to a CPU (or to a node's CPUs) that as long as the zone
fallback list was right, that process would be getting local memory
pretty much all the time anyway?

Last but not least: you got some benchmark numbers for this?

Thanks.