Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] Expose per-node reclaim and migration to userspace

Paul Menage
2006-11-30T11:23:15Z

On 11/30/06, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> But I'm not sure that there is a good reason to use the same
> abstraction. Maybe there is, but I think it needs more discussion
> (unless I missed something in the past couple of weeks were you
> managed to get all memory resource controller groups to agree with
> your fakenodes approach).

No, not at all - but we've observed that:

a) people have been proposing interesting memory controller approaches
for a long time, and haven't made a great deal of progress so far, so
there's no indication than something is going to be agreed upon in the
near future

b) the cpusets and fake numa code provide a fairly serviceable
coarse-grained memory controller, modulo a few missing features such
as per-node reclaim/migration and auto-expansion (see my patch
proposal hopefully tomorrow).

Paul