[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikyXpXKhyy2oZxAF5ums2go2qie0ShOGt2dtHBH@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 21:29:23 +0200
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
lennart@...ttering.net, jsafrane@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> What about the case where some subset of the parent's mems/cpus are
>>> given to a child with the exclusive flag set?
>>>
>>
>> As I mentioned in the TODO, it is still to be handled.
>
> Oops, sorry, just read the patch :-)
>
>> But it should
>> simply exclude those mems/cpus which are exclusive. It was a bit more
>> involved than the effort I wanted to put in before gauging the
>> reactions.
>
> I think the idea is reasonable - the only way that I could see it
> breaking someone would be code that currently does something like:
>
> mkdir A
> mkdir B
> echo 1 > A/mem_exclusive
> echo 1 > B/mem_exclusive
> echo $mems_for_a > A/mems
> echo $mems_for_b > B/mems
>
> The attempts to set the mem_exclusive flags would fail, since A and B
> would both have all of the parent's mems.
>
But would this not fail otherwise?
Dhaval
--
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