From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262759AbVHDXuf (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:50:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262761AbVHDXud (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:50:33 -0400 Received: from graphe.net ([209.204.138.32]:60821 "EHLO graphe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262759AbVHDXtf (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 19:49:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: christoph@graphe.net To: Andi Kleen cc: Paul Jackson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: NUMA policy interface In-Reply-To: <20050804234025.GJ8266@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20050803084849.GB10895@wotan.suse.de> <20050804142942.GY8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804170803.GB8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804211445.GE8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804214132.GF8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804234025.GJ8266@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -5.8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andi Kleen wrote: > None of them seem very attractive to me. I would prefer to just > not support external accesses keeping things lean and fast. That is a surprising statement given what we just discussed. Things are not lean and fast but weirdly screwed up. The policy layer is significantly impacted by historical contingencies rather than designed in a clean way. It cannot even deliver the functionality it was designed to deliver (see BIND). > Individual physical page migration is quite different from > address space migration. Address space migration? That is something new in this discussion. So could you explain what you mean by that? I have looked at page migration in a variety of contexts and could not see much difference.