On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > You don't need to save the entire mask--just note that NODE_MASK_ALL was > passed--like with my internal MPOL_CONTEXT flag. This would involve > special casing NODE_MASK_ALL in the error checking, as currently > set_mempolicy() complains loudly if you pass non-allowed nodes--see > "contextualize_policy()". [mbind() on the other hand, appears to allow > any nodemask, even outside the cpuset. guess we catch this during > allocation.] This is pretty much the spirit of my patch w/o the API > change/extension [/improvement :)] > Not really, because perhaps your application doesn't want to interleave over all nodes. I suggested NODE_MASK_ALL as the way to get access to all the memory you are allowed, but it's certainly plausible that an application could request to interleave only over a subset. That's the entire reason set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE) takes a nodemask anyway right now instead of just using task->mems_allowed on each allocation. 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: Lee Schermerhorn <[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]>
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- Prev by Date: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- Next by Date: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- 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):