Re: [PATCH 10/14] Add /sys trigger for per-node memory compaction

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Tue Apr 06 2010 - 21:23:20 EST

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:56:01 -0400
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:31:48 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A cgroup which controls placement of memory is cpuset.
> err, yes, that.
> > One idea is per cpuset. But per-node seems ok.
> Which is superior?
> Which maps best onto the way systems are used (and onto ways in which
> we _intend_ that systems be used)?

node has hugepage interface now.

[root@bluextal qemu-kvm-0.12.3]# ls /sys/devices/system/node/node0/hugepages/

So, per-node knob is straightforward.

> Is the physical node really the best unit-of-administration? And is
> direct access to physical nodes the best means by which admins will
> manage things?

In these days, we tend to use "setup tool" for using cpuset, etc.
(as libcgroup.)

Considering control by userland-support-soft, I think pernode is not bad.
And per-cpuset requires users to mount cpuset.
(Now, most of my customer doesn't use cpuset.)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at