Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > Well, passing a single node to set_mempolicy() for MPOL_INTERLEAVE doesn't 
> > make a whole lot of sense in the first place.  I prefer your solution of 
> > allowing set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, NODE_MASK_ALL) to mean "interleave 
> > me over everything I'm allowed to access."  NODE_MASK_ALL would be stored 
> > in the struct mempolicy and used later on mpol_rebind_policy().
> 
> So instead of an empty nodemask we would pass a nodemask where all bits 
> are set? And they would stay set but the cpuset restrictions would 
> effectively limit the interleaving to the allowed set?
> 

You would pass NODE_MASK_ALL if your intent was to interleave over 
everything you have access to, yes.  Otherwise you can pass whatever you 
want access to and your interleaved nodemask becomes 
mpol_rebind_policy()'s newmask formal (the cpuset's new mems_allowed) 
AND'd with pol->passed_nodemask.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/