Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:40:33 -0800 (PST) | | From | David Rientjes <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag |
| |
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> If we ever call mpol_rebind_policy() with an MPOL_PREFERRED|MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES > policy when the preferred_node doesn't happen to be in the current cpuset, > then would the following lines loose the preferred node setting, such that > it didn't get applied again correctly if that node came back into our allowed > cpuset ? > > case MPOL_PREFERRED: > if (!remap && !node_isset(pol->v.preferred_node, *newmask)) > pol->v.preferred_node = -1; >
That's already been corrected as a result of a discussion between Lee and myself (please see the incremental patch that I sent you privately when I sent the patchset along).
> Should the mpol_equal() algorithm change, in the case of either > MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES or MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES, to checking > user_nodemask equality, -instead- of the "switch(mode)" > mode specific tests? >
That's a good question.
We'll need to decide whether mpol_equal() is determining the equality of the currently effected mempolicy (whereas policy->user_nodemask is irrelevant) or the whole intended mempolicy overall.
I didn't originally modify mpol_equal() because I preferred the former. Is there a compelling case for the latter where mpol_equal() is used in the tree that would require this change?
> Could we have mpol_to_str() mark policies which are > MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES or MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES? Perhaps > by adding a suffix of "|relative" or "|static" or some > such. >
I'd like to keep it in the same format as the tmpfs mount option which is '=relative' and '=static'.
David
|  |