From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] Make writeout during reclaim cpuset aware Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:28:16 +1100 References: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <200701170907.14670.ak@suse.de> <20070116202056.075c4c03.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070116202056.075c4c03.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701171528.16854.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Jackson Cc: clameter@sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, menage@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, dgc@sgi.com List-ID: On Wednesday 17 January 2007 15:20, Paul Jackson wrote: > Andi wrote: > > Is there a reason this can't be just done by node, ignoring the cpusets? > > This suggestion doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. > > We're looking to see if a task has dirtied most of the > pages in the nodes it is allowed to use. If it has, then > we want to start pushing pages to the disk harder, and > slowing down the tasks writes. > > What would it mean to do this per-node? And why would > that be better? With a per node dirty limit you would get essentially the same effect and it would have the advantage of helping people who don't configure any cpusets but run on a NUMA system. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org