[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080215041957.afe41262.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:57 -0600
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
clameter@....com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag
> So basically the "relative" nodemask that is passed with
> MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES is wrapped around the allowed nodes?
>
> relative nodemask mems_allowed result
> 1,3,5 4 4
> 1,3,5 4-6 4-6
> 1,3,5 4-8 4-5,7
> 1,3,5 4-10 4,6,8
>
> Is that correct?
By my calculation, all but the last line is correct.
We use zero-based numbering, so relative node '1' is the
'second' node, and the 'second' node in allowed nodes 4-10
is node 5, not 4. Similarly for relative nodes '3' and '5'.
So that last line should be:
> 1,3,5 4-10 5,7,9
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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