Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> Choice B lets the task calculate its mempolicy mask as if it owned
> the entire system, and express whatever elaborate mempolicy placement
> it might need, when blessed with enough memory nodes to matter.
> The system would automatically scrunch that request down to whatever
> is the current size and placement of the cpuset holding that task.
> 
> Given a clean slate, I prefer Choice B.

Yes. We should default to Choice B. Add an option MPOL_MF_RELATIVE to 
enable that functionality? A new version of numactl can then enable
that by default for newer applications.
-
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]>

• 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: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] voyager: fix breakage caused by boot_params problem
• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]