[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0711011204400.21823@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:
> A library such as libnuma can set them, yes, but not everyone uses
> libnuma. Basically everyone uses the standard C library, glibc, which
> has the system call wrappers, but these wrappers should not be setting
> optional flags.
>
I think what would end up happening is that additional functions would be
added to libnuma that would effect the system-wide nodemask numbering by
simply OR'ing the MPOL_F_MODE_SYS_WIDE flag as part of the mode actual.
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