[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
David wrote:
> If something that was previously unaccepted is now allowed with a
> newly-introduced semantic, that's an API change.

Agreed, as I wrote earlier:
> It should work with libnuma and be
> fully upward compatible with current code (except perhaps code that
> depends on getting an error from requesting MPOL_INTERLEAVE on a node
> not allowed.)

Without at least this sort of change to MPOL_INTERLEAVE nodemasks,
allowing either empty nodemasks (Lee's proposal) or extending them
outside the current cpuset (what I'm cooking up now), there is no way
for a task that is currently confined to a single node cpuset to say
anything about how it wants be interleaved in the event that it is
subsequently moved to a larger cpuset. Currently, such a task is only
allowed to pass exactly one particular nodemask to set_mempolicy
MPOL_INTERLEAVE calls, with exactly the one bit corresponding to its
current node. No useful information can be passed via an API that only
allows a single legal value.

But you knew that ...

You were just correcting my erroneously unqualified statement. Good.

I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
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 21:03    [W:0.126 / U:6.552 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site