[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
    I'm still confused, Christoph.

    Are you saying:
    1) The kernel continues to default to Choice A, unless
    the flag enables Choice B, or
    2) The kernel defaults to the new Choice B, unless the
    flag reverts to the old Choice A?

    Alternative (2) breaks libnuma and hence numactl until it is changed
    to use the flag, or changed to use choice B (in which case it wouldn't
    need the flag.)

    So I guess you mean alternative (1) above, since you seem to be taking
    the position that we can't break compatibility here.

    But I could quote statements from you that seem to clearly state the
    exact opposite.

    So I remain confused.

    Actually, alternative (1) is kinda ugly. It leaves a permanent wart
    on the set_mempolicy API -- two different variants to what the node
    numbers and node masks mean, depending on whether this MPOL_MF_RELATIVE
    is set on each call. We'll have to ship out an extra serving of brain
    food for most folks looking at this to have much chance that they will
    confidently understand the difference between the two options selected
    by this flag.

    I wonder if there might be some way to avoid that permanent ugly wart
    on each and every set/get mempolicy system call forever afterward.

    Please try to double check your next reply, Christoph. I'm beginning
    to worry that we might be failing to communicate clearly. Thanks.

    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 07:19    [W:0.023 / U:16.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site