From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDCC6B01F3 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction Message-Id: <20100406175601.b131e9d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1270224168-14775-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1270224168-14775-11-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100406170559.52093bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100407093148.d5d1c42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , Adam Litke , Avi Kivity , David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset. err, yes, that. > One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok. Which is superior? Which maps best onto the way systems are used (and onto ways in which we _intend_ that systems be used)? Is the physical node really the best unit-of-administration? And is direct access to physical nodes the best means by which admins will manage things? -- 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