* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > . enable users to
> > specify an 'allocation priority' of some sort, which kicks out the
> > pagecache on the local node - or something like that.
>
> Yes, that would be preferable - I don't know what the difficulty is
> with that. sys_set_mempolicy() should provide a sufficiently good
> hint.
yes. I'm not against some flushing mechanism for debugging or test
purposes (it can be useful to start from a new, clean state - and as
such the sysctl for root only and depending on KERNEL_DEBUG is probably
better than an explicit syscall), but the idea to give a flushing API to
applications is bad i believe.
It is the 'easy and incorrect path' to a number of NUMA (and non-NUMA)
VM problems and i fear that it will destroy the evolution of VM
priority/placement/affinity APIs (NUMAlib, etc.).
At least making it sufficiently painful to use (via the originally
proposed root-only sysctl) could still preserve some of the incentive to
provide a clean solution for applications. 'Time to market' constraints
should not be considered when adding core mechanisms.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
