[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710271212450.19199@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote:
> Hacking and requiring an updated version of libnuma to allow empty
> nodemasks to be passed is a poor solution; if mempolicy's are supposed to
> be independent from cpusets, then what semantics does an empty nodemask
> actually imply when using MPOL_INTERLEAVE? To me, it means the entire
> set_mempolicy() should be a no-op, and that's exactly how mainline
> currently treats it _as_well_ as libnuma. So justifying this change in
> the man page is respectible, but passing an empty nodemask just doesn't
> make sense.
>
Another reason that passing an empty nodemask to set_mempolicy() doesn't
make sense is that libnuma uses numa_set_interleave_mask(&numa_no_nodes)
to disable interleaving completely.
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