On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > And even when the intent is to preserve the cpuset relative positions of > the nodes in the nodemask, this really only makes sense if the original > and modified cpusets have the same physical topology w/rt multi-level > NUMA interconnects. This is something that has bothered me about > dynamic cpusets and current policy remapping. We don't do a good job of > explaining the implications of changing cpuset topology on applications, > nor do we handle it very well in the code. Paul addresses one of my > concerns in a later message in this thread, so I'll comment there. > I agree with your assessment of our current policy remapping with respect to the passed nodemask, I think it's troublesome. Whether we can change that now is another question, but the remap certainly doesn't help respect the intent of the application and the mempolicies they have set up when influenced by an outside entity such as cpusets. See my new Choice C alternative. David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- References:
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors
- Next by Date: Re: Multiple MSI messages support
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Index(es):
 |