Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> Without at least this sort of change to MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemasks,
> allowing either empty nodemasks (Lee's proposal) or extending them
> outside the current cpuset (what I'm cooking up now), there is no way
> for a task that is currently confined to a single node cpuset to say
> anything about how it wants be interleaved in the event that it is
> subsequently moved to a larger cpuset.  Currently, such a task is only
> allowed to pass exactly one particular nodemask to set_mempolicy
> MPOL_INTERLEAVE calls, with exactly the one bit corresponding to its
> current node.  No useful information can be passed via an API that only
> allows a single legal value.
> 

Well, passing a single node to set_mempolicy() for MPOL_INTERLEAVE doesn't 
make a whole lot of sense in the first place.  I prefer your solution of 
allowing set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, NODE_MASK_ALL) to mean "interleave 
me over everything I'm allowed to access."  NODE_MASK_ALL would be stored 
in the struct mempolicy and used later on mpol_rebind_policy().

		David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/