lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
> > You have chosen (1) above, which keeps Choice A as the default.
>
> There can be different defaults for the user space API via libnuma that
> are indepdent from the kernel API which needs to remain stable. The kernel
> API can be extended but not changed.

Yes - the user level code can have different defaults too.

I was discussing what should be the default kernel API.

> None of those [alternatives] sound appealing. Multiple processes may run
> in one cpuset.

Well, that would justify keeping this choice per-task. I tend to
agree with that.

But that doesn't justify having to specify it on each system call.

In another reply David recommends against supporting Choice A at all.
I'm inclined to agree with him. I'll reply there, with more thoughts.

But if we did support Choice A, as a backwards compatible alternative
to Choice B, I'd suggest a per-task mode, not per-system call mode.
This would reduce the impact on the API of the ugly, unobvious, modal
flag needed to select the optional, non kernel default, Choice B
semantics.

I still have low confidence that you (Christoph) and I have the same
understanding of what these Choice A and B are. Hopefully you can
address that, perhaps by briefly describing these choices in your words.

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-27 23:03    [W:0.417 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site