From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:24:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4A3C8EAE.3030007@inria.fr>
References: <000c01c9d212$4c244720$e46cd560$@rwth-aachen.de>	 <87zldjn597.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>	 <000001c9eac4$cb8b6690$62a233b0$@rwth-aachen.de>	 <20090612103251.GJ25568@one.firstfloor.org> <1245119132.6724.32.camel@lts-notebook>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1245119132.6724.32.camel@lts-notebook>
Sender: linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-numa.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Stefan Lankes <lankes@lfbs.rwth-aachen.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Boris Bierbaum <boris@lfbs.rwth-aachen.de>, 'Brice Goglin' <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>

Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> My patches don't have per process enablement.  Rather, I chose to use
> per cpuset enablement.  I view cpusets as sort of "numa control groups"
> and thought this was an appropriate level at which to control this sort
> of behavior--analogous to memory_spread_{page|slab}.  That probably
> needs to be discussed more widely, tho'.
>   

Could you explain why you actually want to enable/disable
migrate-on-fault on a cpuset (or process) basis? Why would an
administrator want to disable it? Aren't the existing cpuset memory
restriction abilities enough?

Brice