[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830705012036g21cc8470nff246e146b1e4023@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:36:29 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc: "David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@...ulhu.engr.sgi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] cpusets: allow empty {cpus,mems}_allowed to be set for unpopulated cpuset
On 5/1/07, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> Why do you need this? It adds a little more code, and changes
> semantics a little bit, so I'd think it should have at least a
> little bit of justfication.
We have cases where we'd like to be able to clear the memory nodes
away from a (temporarily) empty cpuset without actually deleting the
directory - there's really no reason for the interface to stop people
from doing that as far as I can see. Otherwise the only way to reclaim
the node for a different sibling is to delete the cpuset.
>
>
> + if (!*buf) {
> + cpus_clear(trialcs.cpus_allowed);
>
> Won't the above code fail if someone does:
>
> echo > /dev/cpuset/foobar/mems
>
> Just guessing, but I'd expect buf[] to contain a newline char,
> not just a zero length string, at this point.
Yes, but that's arguably an artefact of the user using the wrong tool
to update the cpu/node set. Doing "echo -n > /dev/cpuset/foobar/mems"
has the expected effect.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists