From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:34:31 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: cpusets vs. mempolicy and how to get interleaving Message-Id: <20070819193431.dce5d4cf.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <46C8E604.8040101@google.com> References: <46C63BDE.20602@google.com> <46C63D5D.3020107@google.com> <46C8E604.8040101@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ethan Solomita Cc: rientjes@google.com, clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Ethan wrote: > And what happens when the weight then goes back up? e.g. at first the > mems_allowed specifies nodes 0 and 1, and the user sets a > MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy across nodes 0 and 1. At some point the "cpuset > manager" shrinks the number of nodes to just node 0, then later it adds > back node 1. What nodes are in my MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy? > > As I read the code, I'll only have one node in the mempolicy. If that's > true, this doesn't do what I want. I read the code the same way. Sounds to me like you want a new and different MPOL_* mempolicy, that interleaves over whatever nodes are available (allowed) to the task. The existing MPOL_INTERLEAVE mempolicy interleaves over some specified nodemask, so we do the best we can to remap that set when it changes. You want a mempolicy that interleaves over all available nodes, not over some specified subset of them. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org