Re: [PATCH] Use MPOL_INTERLEAVE for tmpfs files

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 08:44:32AM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > 
> > Another way might be a tmpfs mount option ... I'd prefer that to a sysctl
> > personally, but maybe others wouldn't. Hugh, is that nuts?
> 
> Only nuts if I am, I was going to suggest the same: the sysctl idea seems
> very inadequate; a mount option at least allows the possibility of having
> different tmpfs files allocated with different policies at the same time.
> 
> But I'm not usually qualified to comment on NUMA matters, and my tmpfs
> maintenance shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of progress.  Plus
> I've barely been attending in recent days: back to normality tomorrow.

If you want to go more finegraid then you can always use numactl
or even libnuma in the application.  For a quick policy decision a sysctl 
is fine imho.

-Andi
-
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/