[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710261436140.16966@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, clameter@....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, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> So, you pass the subset, you don't set the flag to indicate you want
> interleaving over all available. You must be thinking of some other use
> for saving the subset mask that I'm not seeing here. Maybe restoring to
> the exact nodes requested if they're taken away and then re-added to the
> cpuset?
>
Paul's motivation for saving the passed nodemask to set_mempolicy() is so
that the _intent_ of the application is never lost. That's the biggest
advantage that this method has and that I totally agree with. So whenever
the mems_allowed of a cpuset changes, the MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemask of all
attached tasks becomes their intent (pol->passed_nodemask) AND'd with the
new mems_allowed. That can be done on mpol_rebind_policy() and shouldn't
be an extensive change.
So MPOL_INTERLEAVE, and possibly other, mempolicies will always try to
accomodate the intent of the application but only as far as the task's
cpuset restriction allows them.
David
-
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