From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:53:20 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: cpusets vs. mempolicy and how to get interleaving Message-Id: <20070819225320.6562fbd1.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <46C92AF4.20607@google.com> References: <46C63BDE.20602@google.com> <46C63D5D.3020107@google.com> <46C8E604.8040101@google.com> <20070819193431.dce5d4cf.pj@sgi.com> <46C92AF4.20607@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: > OK, then I'll proceed with a new MPOL. Do you believe that this will be > of general interest? i.e. worth placing in linux-mm? I've no idea if it is of general interest or not. I'm not interested ;). But I'm just one person. > BTW, a slightly different MPOL_INTERLEAVE implementation would help, > wherein we save the nodemask originally specified by the user and do the > remap from the original nodemask rather than the current nodemask. I kinda like this idea; though keep in mind that since I don't use mempolicy mechanisms, I am not loosing any sleep over minor(?) compatibility breakages. It would take someone familiar with the actual users or usages of MPOL_INTERLEAVE to know if or how much this would bite actual users/usages. -- 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