[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710301615580.19750@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...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 Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:
> But in any case, we (the kernel) are just providing the mechanisms.
> If they don't fit ones needs, don't use them ;).
>
The kernel is providing the mechanism to interleave over a set of nodes or
prefer a single node for allocations, but it also provides for remapping
those to different nodes, without regard to locality or affinity to
specific hardware, when the cpuset changes. That's what Choice C is
intended to replace: a node means a node so either you get an effected
mempolicy over the nodemask you asked for, or MPOL_DEFAULT is used because
you lack sufficient access.
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