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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
