On Monday 29 October 2007 20:35:58 Paul Jackson wrote:
> Lee wrote:
> > 2. As this thread progresses, you've discussed relaxing the requirement
> > that applications pass a valid subset of mems_allowed. I.e., something
> > that was illegal becomes legal. An API change, I think. But, a
> > backward compatible one, so that's OK, right? :-)
>
> The more I have stared at this, the more certain I've become that we
> need to make the mbind/mempolicy calls modal -- the default mode
> continues to interpret node numbers and masks just as these calls do
> now, and the alternative mode provides the so called "Choice B",
> which takes node numbers and masks as if the task owned the entire
> system, and then the kernel internally and automatically scrunches
> those masks down to whatever happens to be the current cpuset of
> the task.
So the user space asks for 8 nodes because it knows the machine
has that many from /sys and it only gets 4 if a cpuset says so? That's
just bad semantics. And is not likely to make the user programs happy.
I don't think you'll get around to teaching user space (or rather libnuma)
about cpusets and let it handle it.
>From the libnuma perspective the machine size would be essentially
current cpuset size.
On the syscall level I don't think it makes much sense to change though.
The alternative would be to throw out the complete cpuset concept and go for
virtual nodes inside containers with virtualized /sys.
-Andi
-
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]
