On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave Hansen wrote: > So, if something like numa_maps existed, but pointed to the memory > object instead of the NUMA node directly, you could still easily derive > the NUMA node. But, you'd also get information about which particular > bits of memory are being used. That might be useful for a user that's > getting desperate to remove some memory and wants to kill some processes > that might be less than willing to release that memory.
We really need both I guess. If you dealing with a batch scheduler that wants to move memory around between nodes in order to optimize programs then you nedd to have numa_maps. Maybe we need to have two: numa_maps and memory_maps? > The downside is that we'll have to get that sysfs stuff working for ! > SPARSEMEM configurations. If we have two maps then we can avoid that. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
