On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> David wrote:
> > The more alarming result of these remaps is in the MPOL_BIND case, as
> > we've talked about before. The language in set_mempolicy(2):
>
> You're diving into the middle of a rather involved discussion
> we had on the other various patches proposed to extend the
> interaction of mempolicy's with cpusets and hotplug.
>
I've simply identified that MPOL_BIND mempolicy interactions with a task's
changing mems_allowed as a result of a cpuset move or mems change is also
an issue that can be addressed at the same time as the interleave problem.
And it can be done with the addition of a single MPOL_F_* flag.
> I choose not to hijack this current thread with my rebuttal,
> which you've seen before, of your points here.
>
The issues of mempolicies working over memoryless nodes and supporting
changing cpusets are very closely related and can be addressed in the same
way. It would be disappointing to see a lot of work done to fix the
memoryless node issue or the changing cpuset mems issue and then realize
both could have been fixed quite simply with a relatively small set of
changes.
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/
