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