On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > So, you pass the subset, you don't set the flag to indicate you want > interleaving over all available. You must be thinking of some other use > for saving the subset mask that I'm not seeing here. Maybe restoring to > the exact nodes requested if they're taken away and then re-added to the > cpuset? > Paul's motivation for saving the passed nodemask to set_mempolicy() is so that the _intent_ of the application is never lost. That's the biggest advantage that this method has and that I totally agree with. So whenever the mems_allowed of a cpuset changes, the MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemask of all attached tasks becomes their intent (pol->passed_nodemask) AND'd with the new mems_allowed. That can be done on mpol_rebind_policy() and shouldn't be an extensive change. So MPOL_INTERLEAVE, and possibly other, mempolicies will always try to accomodate the intent of the application but only as far as the task's cpuset restriction allows them. 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
- 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]>
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: unify crash_32/64.c
- 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):