From: William L. I. I. <wl...@ho...> - 2004-09-21 09:34:43
|
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:30:12PM -0500, Ray Bryant wrote: >> I'm sorry if this is confusing, personal terminology usually gets in the >> way. >> The idea is that just like for the page allocation policy (your current >> code), if you wanted, you would have a global, default page cache > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:13:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Having both a per process page cache and a global page cache policy > would seem like overkill to me. > And having both doesn't make much sense anyways, because when the > system admin wants to change the global policy to free memory > on nodes he would still need to worry about conflicting per process policies > anyways. So as soon as you have process policy you cannot easily > change global anymore. Ray, would being able to change the default policy via kernel command- line options (and perhaps sysctl) suffice? It seems that a global default and some global state (e.g. per-cpu state) should largely capture what you're after. If not, could you clarify where it doesn't? Also, this switch statement stuff is getting a little hairy; maybe it's time to bring in mempolicy_ops. Or at least trudging through the switch () statements is turning into a moderate amount of work for me. -- wli |