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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
