On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> The patch I just posted doesn't depend on the numactl changes and seems
> quite minimal to me. I think it cleans up the differences between
> set_mempolicy() and mbind(), as well. However, some may take exception
> to the change in behavior--silently ignoring dis-allowed nodes in
> set_mempolicy().
>
If the intent of the set_mempolicy() call is going to be preserved in the
struct mempolicy with Paul's change, then we're going to allow disallowed
nodes anyway. So the only nodemask errors that we should return are ones
that are empty; nodemasks that include offlined nodes should be allowed to
support node hotplug. Likewise, memoryless nodes should still be saved as
the intent of the syscall.
The change to save the intent or silently ignore disallowed nodes would
also require applications to issue a successive get_mempolicy() call to
know what their current mempolicy is, since it will be able to change with
a cpusets change or node hotplug event. There is no longer this assurance
that if set_mempolicy() returns without an error that the memory policy is
effected. But in the presence of subsystems such as cpusets that allow
those mempolicies to change from beneath the application, there is no way
around that: the nodemask that the mempolicy acts on can dynamically
change at any time.
So I don't see any problem with silently ignoring disallowed nodes and
encourage it so that the kernel accomodates the intent of the mempolicy in
the future if and when it can be effected.
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/
