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

Nick Piggin
2006-11-30T11:35:41Z

Paul Menage wrote:
> 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:

I agree with your points and I'll add a couple more.

> 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

a2) and it hasn't been because they've been getting their APIs wrong

> 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).

b2) and it doesn't mean that it can't be used with a decent API. Or
at least, you haven't yet shown that it can't.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com