[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071026194144.6042316a.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:41:44 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.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
Christoph wrote:
> Yes. We should default to Choice B. Add an option MPOL_MF_RELATIVE to
> enable that functionality? A new version of numactl can then enable
> that by default for newer applications.
I'm confused. If B is the default, then we don't need a flag to
enable it, rather we need a flag to go back to the old choice A.
So are you saying that:
1) Choice A remains the default for the kernel unless
MPOL_MF_RELATIVE is added, or
2) that the new default for the kernel is Choice B,
unless MPOL_MF_RELATIVE is specified, asking to
revert to the original Choice A behaviour?
Perhaps, either way, whatever compatibility flag we have should be
something that can be forced on an application from the outside,
perhaps as a per-system mode flag in /sys, or a per-cpuset mode flag,
or a per-task operation, by what mechanism is not clear.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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