[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710251635420.9635@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
> Adds a new 'interleave_over_allowed' option to cpusets.
>
> When a task with an MPOL_INTERLEAVE memory policy is attached to a cpuset
> with this option set, the interleaved nodemask becomes the cpuset's
> mems_allowed. When the cpuset's mems_allowed changes, the interleaved
> nodemask for all tasks with MPOL_INTERLEAVE memory policies is also
> updated to be the new mems_allowed nodemask.
>
> This allows applications to specify that they want to interleave over all
> nodes that they are allowed to access. This set of nodes can be changed
> at any time via the cpuset interface and each individual memory policy is
> updated to reflect the changes for all attached tasks when this option is
> set.
More interactions between cpusets and memory policies. We have to be
careful here to keep clean semantics.
Isnt it a bit surprising for an application that has set up a custom
MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy if the nodes suddenly change because of a cpuset or
mems_allowed change?
-
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