[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710261406330.10620@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Well, passing a single node to set_mempolicy() for MPOL_INTERLEAVE doesn't
> > make a whole lot of sense in the first place. I prefer your solution of
> > allowing set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, NODE_MASK_ALL) to mean "interleave
> > me over everything I'm allowed to access." NODE_MASK_ALL would be stored
> > in the struct mempolicy and used later on mpol_rebind_policy().
>
> So instead of an empty nodemask we would pass a nodemask where all bits
> are set? And they would stay set but the cpuset restrictions would
> effectively limit the interleaving to the allowed set?
>
You would pass NODE_MASK_ALL if your intent was to interleave over
everything you have access to, yes. Otherwise you can pass whatever you
want access to and your interleaved nodemask becomes
mpol_rebind_policy()'s newmask formal (the cpuset's new mems_allowed)
AND'd with pol->passed_nodemask.
-
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