On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that
> > is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets. Local
> > allocation does, and my patch does. That was one of the primary
> > goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies.
> > cpusets really muck these up!
>
> It probably won't handle that. I don't get along too well with shmem.
IMHO shmem policy support is pretty much messed up (seems that we
introduced new races by trying to fix the refcounts). I tend to ignore the
stuff unless it impacts regular shared or regular memory. Before we do any
of this fancy stuff lets at least get the refcount handling right?
> Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with
> shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different
> cpusets? What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution?
> Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much
> this time around.
With relative nodemasks we could have a MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy working in
multiple cpuset contexts. If nodes 0 and 1 are set in a nodemask then the
first two nodes of the current cpuset are interleaved through. Nodes that
do not exist are ignored. So if there is no second node then
MPOL_INTERLEAVE becomes a noop.
-
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]
