[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [27]   [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:
> I prefer Choice B because it does not force mempolicies to have any
> dependence on cpusets with regard to what nodemask is passed.

Yes, well said.

> It would be very good to store the passed nodemask to set_mempolicy in
> struct mempolicy,

Yes - that's what I'm intending to do.

> If the cpuset has fewer than four nodes, the behavior
> should be undefined (probably implemented to just cycle the set of
> mems_allowed until you reach the fourth entry).

I do intend to implement it as you suggest. See the lib/bitmap.c
routines bitmap_remap() and bitmap_bitremap(), and the nodemask
wrappers for these, nodes_remap() and node_remap(). They will
define the cycling, or I sometimes call it folding.

I would have tended to make this folding a defined part of the API,
though I will grant that the possibility of being lazy and forgetting
to document it seems attractive (less to document ;).

> That [running in a cpuset with fewer nodes than used in a memory policy
> mask] is the result of constraining a task to a cpuset that obviously
> wants access to more nodes -- it's a userspace mistake and abusing
> cpusets so that the task does not get what it expects.

Nah - I wouldn't put it that way. It's no mistake or abuse. It's just
one more example of a kernel making too few resources look sufficient
by sharing, multiplexing and virtualizing them. That's what kernels do.

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: 2007-10-27 23:25    [W:0.097 / U:34.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site