Lee wrote:
> In libnuma in numactl-1.0.2 that I recently grabbed off Andi's site,
> numa_available() indeed issues this call. But, I don't see any internal
> calls to numa_available() [comments says all other calls undefined when
> numa_available() returns an error] nor any other calls to
> get_mempolicy() with all null/0 args. So, you'd be depending on the
> application to call numa_available().
Aha - good point. It happened to be the numactl command line utility
that I tested with that issued the get_mempolicy(0,0,0,0,0) call.
Yup - this proposed hack, to have the kernel revert to the original
memory policy nodemask numbering if it sees such a getmempolicy call
is now officially dead meat.
Thanks.
> However, you could define an
> additional MPOL_F_* flag to get_mempolicy() that is issued in library
> init code to enable new behavior--again, based on some indication that
> new behavior is desired or not.
Yes - I am intending to define such MPOL_F_* flags, to set and get
which behavior applies to the current task.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/
- References:
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- 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]>
- 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: Paul Jackson <[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 0/6][RFC] Cleanup FIBMAP
- Next by Date: Re: [stable] 2.6.23 regression: top displaying 9999% CPU usage
- 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):
 |