[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 3/3] cpusets: add memory_spread_user option
    On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

    > > Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that
    > > is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets. Local
    > > allocation does, and my patch does. That was one of the primary
    > > goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies.
    > > cpusets really muck these up!
    > It probably won't handle that. I don't get along too well with shmem.

    IMHO shmem policy support is pretty much messed up (seems that we
    introduced new races by trying to fix the refcounts). I tend to ignore the
    stuff unless it impacts regular shared or regular memory. Before we do any
    of this fancy stuff lets at least get the refcount handling right?

    > Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with
    > shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different
    > cpusets? What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution?
    > Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much
    > this time around.

    With relative nodemasks we could have a MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy working in
    multiple cpuset contexts. If nodes 0 and 1 are set in a nodemask then the
    first two nodes of the current cpuset are interleaved through. Nodes that
    do not exist are ignored. So if there is no second node then
    MPOL_INTERLEAVE becomes a noop.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-26 20:05    [W:0.019 / U:2.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site