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

From: Brice Goglin
Date: Sat Jun 20 2009 - 03:24:19 EST

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?


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