Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> No and yes.  The manner in which too many nodes (as requested in a
> RELATIVE mask) are folded into too small a cpuset is not actually
> that critical, so long as it doesn't come up empty.  However, what
> I'll be recommending, in a follow-up patch, will be folding the
> larger set into the smaller one modulo the size of the smaller one.
> 

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?

		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/