Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions

[Mike Travis]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/