[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710311157310.21799@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:
> #include <linux/mmzone.h>
> @@ -64,13 +72,18 @@ struct mm_struct;
> struct mempolicy {
> atomic_t refcnt;
> short policy; /* See MPOL_* above */
> + char mpol_nodemask_mode; /* See MPOL_MODE_* above; union c below */
Make both policy and the mode char? Could we shorten the mpol_nodemask_mode
to mode?
> --- 2.6.23-mm1.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2007-10-30 18:04:11.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.23-mm1/include/linux/sched.h 2007-10-30 18:11:07.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1112,6 +1112,7 @@ struct task_struct {
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> struct mempolicy *mempolicy;
> short il_next;
> + char mpol_nodemask_mode; /* new mem policies will get this mode */
Hmmm... I would rather have numactl manage this flag and specify it in
calls to set memory policies.
-
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