Matthew Dobson wrote:
>
> Greetings & Salutations,
> Here's a wonderful patch that I know you're all dying for... Memory
> Binding!
Seems reasonable to me.
Could you tell us a bit about the operator's view of this?
I assume that a typical usage scenario would be to bind a process
to a bunch of CPUs and to then bind that process to a bunch of
memblks as well?
If so, then how does the operator know how to identify those
memblks? To perform the (cpu list) <-> (memblk list) mapping?
Also, what advantage does this provide over the current node-local
allocation policy? I'd have thought that once you'd bound a
process to a CPU (or to a node's CPUs) that as long as the zone
fallback list was right, that process would be getting local memory
pretty much all the time anyway?
Last but not least: you got some benchmark numbers for this?
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:35 EST