Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch

[Brice Goglin]

Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> My patches don't have per process enablement.  Rather, I chose to use
> per cpuset enablement.  I view cpusets as sort of "numa control groups"
> and thought this was an appropriate level at which to control this sort
> of behavior--analogous to memory_spread_{page|slab}.  That probably
> needs to be discussed more widely, tho'.
>   

Could you explain why you actually want to enable/disable
migrate-on-fault on a cpuset (or process) basis? Why would an
administrator want to disable it? Aren't the existing cpuset memory
restriction abilities enough?

Brice

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/