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 SMTP id 18A0D6B006A for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:13:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:12:55 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] Add /proc trigger for memory compaction In-Reply-To: <20100120094813.GC5154@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <1262795169-9095-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1262795169-9095-6-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100120094813.GC5154@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: David Rientjes , Andrea Arcangeli , Adam Litke , Avi Kivity , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > True, although the per-node structures are only available on NUMA making > it necessary to have two interfaces. The per-node one is handy enough > because it would be just > > /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/compact_node > When written to, this node is compacted by the writing process > > But there does not appear to be a "good" way of having a non-NUMA > interface. /sys/devices/system/node does not exist .... Does anyone > remember why !NUMA does not have a /sys/devices/system/node/node0? Is > there a good reason or was there just no point? We could create a fake node0 for the !NUMA case I guess? Dont see a major reason why not to do it aside from scripts that may check for the presence of the file to switch to a "NUMA" mode. -- 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