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

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote:

> Hacking and requiring an updated version of libnuma to allow empty 
> nodemasks to be passed is a poor solution; if mempolicy's are supposed to 
> be independent from cpusets, then what semantics does an empty nodemask 
> actually imply when using MPOL_INTERLEAVE?  To me, it means the entire 
> set_mempolicy() should be a no-op, and that's exactly how mainline 
> currently treats it _as_well_ as libnuma.  So justifying this change in 
> the man page is respectible, but passing an empty nodemask just doesn't 
> make sense.
> 

Another reason that passing an empty nodemask to set_mempolicy() doesn't 
make sense is that libnuma uses numa_set_interleave_mask(&numa_no_nodes)
to disable interleaving completely.

		David
-
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/