[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B4A3D7.7040007@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:25:59 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
mel@....ul.ie, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> You're saying the kernel should use these relative masks internally?
>
> There is just some thoughts about this. Did not have time to look into the
> details. Mike?
There are a few places where the entire cpumask is not needed. For
example, in the area of core siblings on a node. There's a limit
to how many cores/threads can be on a node and the full 4k cpumask
is not needed. How this pertains to this new functionality I'm
not sure yet.
>
>> That means it would be impossible to run workloads that use the complete
>> machine because you couldn't represent all nodes.
>
> Not sure how they are addressing this.
--
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