Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:26 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Christoph wrote:
> > The library interface can set flags to modify behavior.
> 
> A library such as libnuma can set them, yes, but not everyone uses
> libnuma.  Basically everyone uses the standard C library, glibc, which
> has the system call wrappers, but these wrappers should not be setting
> optional flags.
> 
> We're going around in circles here, Christoph.

I think that the syscall man pages can document the behavior mode flag
for folks who want to use the "raw" interface.  I think we already
recommend the use of libnuma APIs.  [If not we can make it so, if folks
agree.]  

So, we default to old behavior in the raw syscall APIs--we MUST, right?
"no breaky user APIs..."--and let new version of the library/ies enable
new behavior when appropriate.  Even a "new syscall", such as the
set_mempolicy2(), et al that you suggested, could be just wrappers over
the existing ones with the behavior mod flag.  Or vice versa.  

Lee



-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux